The Supreme Court has observed that the benefit of the grace marks policy introduced by Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) for Departmental Examination for Income Tax Inspectors is not to allow the reserved category candidate to switch over to general category.
“Only in a case where any candidate belonging to any category is marginally failing to pass the examination, he is/was to be allowed the grace marks so as to allow him to obtain the minimum passing marks required and that too by allowing upto five grace marks.”, the bench comprising Justices M R Shah and B V Nagarathna noted.
The applicant, Mukesh Kumar Meena contended before the Central Administrative Tribunal was that though he belongs to ST category and he passed in the examination with relaxed standards of marks provided for SCs and STs category, but he actually got 43 marks in one of the subjects and had he been given two grace marks in the “Other Taxes” paper in the departmental examination, he would have been declared passed in 2007 itself on his own merit and would have been eligible to get the benefit of promotion against general vacancies.
The CAT dismissed the said application by observing that the CBDT circular providing grace marks cannot be interpreted to mean that a person, who has passed in his own category can be given further grace marks to enable him to move in the general category on his own merit. Allowing the writ petition filed by him, the Rajasthan High Court directed the Department to extend grace marks to him in the subject of “Other Taxes” by treating him as a person belonging to general category.
Against the order, the Union of India approached the Supreme Court contending that the grace marks policy introduced by CBDT was not applicable in favour of a person, who has passed in his own category.
After hearing both the sides, the bench noted that the CBDT introduced the grace marks policy with the purpose of enabling the marginally failing candidates to pass in the examination.
“Once the respondent – original applicant passed in his own category, there was no question of allowing/granting him any further grace marks. If the contention on behalf of the respondent – original applicant is accepted, in that case, granting the grace marks in the aforesaid case would be beyond the object and purpose of granting grace marks and beyond the policy declared by CBDT. Only in a case where any candidate belonging to any category is marginally failing to pass the examination, he is/was to be allowed the grace marks so as to allow him to obtain the minimum passing marks required and that too by allowing upto five grace marks. By passing the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has not at all appreciated and/or considered in its true spirit the object and purpose of grace marks policy introduced by CBDT. It was never meant for a person, who has passed in his own category and still to allow him further grace marks to enable him to move to the general category. That was not the object and purpose of the grace marks policy,” the Court said.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
