Calcutta High Court: The Court rejected the Contention that only because there were no persons in the department, therefore, the private respondent should have been treated as a “class” or “category of persons” for the purpose of relaxation. The Relaxation made in the Rules by the Lieutenant Governor granted to a particular individual in reference to the basic qualification for Relaxation or Recru itment rules that indicates such benefit of being trained is only to be given to in-service candidates. The inservice candidate means persons who are in service but who are qualified and eligible to take part in the training. The private respondent being a plain Arts Graduate, though being an in -service person, cannot be said to have been eligible to undertake the training at all. The Court observed that in reference to the basic qualification for Relaxation Rule 4(3) brought on record that Relaxation or Recruitment Rules is to be restored to in respect of a class or category of persons. Relaxation should not be restored to in respect of an individual except in cases where an individual can be treated as a Class or Category of persons. Even upon a perusal of the said Rule 4 (3) it is thus evident that relaxation can be resorted to only in respect of a “class” or “category of persons” but not in respect of an individual except in cases where an individual can be treated as “class” or “category of persons.” (Raj Kumar v. Lieutenant Governor, WP No.023 of 2012, decided on July 17, 2012).