IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR TUESDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2008 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1930 WP(C).No. 21249 of 2005(S) ------------------------------------- OA.549/2004 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH ............................................... PETITIONERS: -------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECTOR TAXES, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C.R.BUILDING, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 18. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CR BUILDING, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI 682 018. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- K.T.ISMAIL, INCOME TAX INSPECTOR(RTD), BERKATH MANZIL, POTHUMAKDAVIL, AZHIKODE, KANNUR 670 009. BY ADV. SRI.KMV.PANDALAI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/04/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C) NO: 21249/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. COPY OF THE OA NO. 549/04 DT. 22/6/04 OF THE CAT, ERNAKULAM. EXT.P2. COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONERS HEREIN IN OA NO. 49/04 DT. 17/09/04. EXT.P3. COPY OF THE ORDER DT. 11/3/2005 IN OA NO. 549/04. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS NIL. True copy tga C.N. Ramachandran Nair & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No.21249 of 2005 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of April, 2008. JUDGMENT T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. The challenge is against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.549/2004. The Tribunal, as per the impugned order, declared that the petitioners were not justified in withholding the result of the department examination of the applicant. Consequential orders have been passed to grant him the benefits notionally for the purpose of recomputing the pensionary benefits. 2. The respondent herein was working as Income Tax Inspector at the relevant time. He was permitted to appear for the Departmental examination for Income Tax Officers in the month of May 2000. As per the prevailing Examination Rules 1998, the upper age prescribed for appearing in the relevant examination is 55 years. At the time when the respondent submitted his application during May 2000, he had already crossed the upper age limit, but without noticing the same, he was allowed to appear for the examination. This was noticed only prior to the announcement of the results of the examination and thus, his result was WPC 21249/2005 -2- withheld. It is in these circumstances the respondent approached the Tribunal. 3. The Tribunal took the view that after having allowed him to write the examination, it was not proper to withhold the result of the examination. Reliance was placed on the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Sri Krishnan v. Kurukshetra University ({1976} 1 SCC 311). 4. We heard Shri P. Parameswaran Nair, learned Asst. Solicitor General for the petitioners and Shri K.M.V. Pandalai, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the upper age limit fixed is 55 going by Annexure R1 rules. Going by Rule IV of the Rules for Departmental Examination for Income Tax Officers 1998, a candidate can avail maximum 10 number of chances, if “his or her age as on 1st April of the year of Examination does not exceed 55 years.” It is therefore contended that the respondent was ineligible to appear for the examination and merely because of the fact that his application was accepted and he was allowed to write the examination, it will not confer any title on him to get the result declared. 5. This was answered by the learned counsel for the respondent contending that once he was allowed to write the examination, it was not WPC 21249/2005 -3- proper to withhold the result. 6. We find that the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal is not correct. The decisions relied upon are cases where the Universities concerned have granted admission to the candidates and after the candidates had undergone the entire course and appeared for the examination, it was held not proper on the part of the University to cancel the entire thing. The said principle will not be applicable here, as it was only a Departmental examination. Herein, the candidate submitted the application in spite of the specific clause in the relevant rules, that he is ineligible to write the examination, as he had crossed the age of 55 years. The age being the eligibility condition to write the examination, the same is mandatory in nature and if at all a mistake had happened in not noticing the same at the time of receipt of the application, that will not be a ground to allow the results to be published. The respondent has not challenged the relevant rules and hence, once the rule is held valid and is applicable to him, all the eligibility conditions therein would apply to him on all fours. In that view of the matter, as the respondent was ineligible to apply for writing the examination, the mere participation in the examination will not confer on him any title to get the result published. Apart from that, he had already retired from service and the direction by the Tribunal is to publish the results and to consider him for WPC 21249/2005 -4- promotion to the post of Income Tax Officer subject to DPC, if required, and grant him all benefits notionally and without disturbing the seniority of others who had already been promoted and to grant him the benefit of fixation for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Such a direction was not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The writ petition is allowed and the Original Application is dismissed. (C.N. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/ WPC 21249/2005 -5- C.N. Ramachandran Nair & T.R. Ramachandran Nair, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I.T. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - JUDGMENT 17th March, 2008.