Service Law : Selection/appointment – Departmental exam for Income Tax Inspectors – Grace marks policy – Benefit of – Held: Benefit of grace marks was not to allow the reserved category to switch over to general category –Central Board of Direct Taxes introduced the grace marks policy with the purpose of enabling marginally failing candidates to pass the examination – Once the applicant passed in his own category-reserved category, there was no question of allowing/granting him any further grace marks 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 – High Court did not appreciate the true spirit the object and purpose of grace marks policy – Rules for Departmental Examination for Income Tax Inspector, 1998.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The CBDT introduced the grace marks policy with the purpose of enabling marginally failing candidates to pass the examination. As per the Rules for Departmental Examination for Income Tax Inspector, 1998, the minimum marks provided for general category candidate was 45% and in the case of SC/ST category candidate, it was 40%. In the instant case, the respondent secured more than 45% marks in each subject except the subject of “Other Taxes”, wherein, he secured 43% marks. However, the minimum requirement was 40% so far as the respondent is concerned, as he belonged to ST category and so he passed in his own category. However, it is the case on behalf of the respondent that as the minimum marks required for general category candidate was 45% and if he would have been awarded two marks by way of grace in the subject of “Other Taxes”, in that case, he would have secured the minimum 45% marks required for general category candidate and therefore, he would have got the promotion in the general category. The tribunal rightly did not accept the same. The benefit of the grace marks was not to allow the reserved category candidate to switch over to general category. [Para 6][126-D-G]
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 respondentoriginal applicant is accepted, in that case, granting the grace marks in the said 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. The impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court is unsustainable and is quashed and set aside. [Para 6.1, 8] [127-A-D, F]
Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Ors. (2007) 8 SCC 785 : [2007] 8 SCR
972 – distinguished.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.