1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR -------------------------------------------------------- 1. CIVIL WRIT No. 1021 of 2009 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. V/S CENTRAL ADMINI. TRIBUNAL, & ORS. 2. CIVIL WRIT No. 1022 of 2009 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. V/S CENTRAL ADMINI. TRIBUNAL, & ORS. 3. CIVIL WRIT No. 1023 of 2009 UNION OF INDIA & ORS. V/S CENTRAL ADMINI. TRIBUNAL, & ORS. Mr. VARUN GUPTA, for the appellant / petitioner Mr. KAMAL DAVE,CAVEATOR, for the respondent Date of Order : 13.5.2009 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI GOVIND MATHUR,J. ORDER These matters come up on the application for early hearing. The matters were listed on 6.5.2009. That day at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the matters were passed over for the day, with an understanding that the matters shall be finally heard at this stage. Accordingly the matters have been heard today. 2 All the three writ petitions have been filed against the common order of the Tribunal, deciding three Original Applications filed by different sets of employees. The controversy involved in these matters is regarding eligibility of the original applicants to appear in the departmental examination for the post of I.T.O., which matter is governed by the rules, known as Departmental Examination for Income Tax Officer Rules, 1998. The controversy precisely is on the aspect of eligibility of the candidates to appear in the examination on the anvil of age; inasmuch as under the rules; the maximum age for eligibility is 55 years, while all the original applicants had crossed that age as on the relevant date. The contention that was raised before the learned Tribunal was, that vide order dt. 21.7.2006 relaxation in age was given, but then, that was not given in the year 2007. Interalia on this ground original application was filed, and during pendency of all the original applications, by interim order, some applicants were allowed to appear, some of them qualified, and some of them did not clear all the papers. However, in subsequent examinations conducted in the year 2008, those candidates were also allowed to appear, and they qualified the 3 examination. In these circumstances, the learned Tribunal has allowed the application in respect of those candidates who have passed, and is dismissed as infructuous in respect of candidates who have failed the examination. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that the relaxation given vide order dt. 21.7.2006 was confined to the examination held in 2006, and was not available for future examinations. It was submitted that under the Rules there is no rule providing for relaxation, and simply because as one time measure, relaxation was given in 2006, that would ipso facto entitle the original applicants, to claim relaxation in the examination of 2007 as well. On the other hand, learned counsel for the original applicants, being private respondents, invited our attention to para-17 of the impugned order of the Tribunal, wherein the Tribunal has referred to, and relied upon another order of the Central Board of Direct Taxes dt. 5.11.2008, whereby blanket relaxation was granted, i.e. in respect of age, and in respect of number of opportunities availed, and submitted, that it was in accordance there with, that the candidates who had otherwise become age bar, were also allowed to appear, and the candidates did clear those examination. In such circumstances, simply because in 2007, hyper-technically they were age bar for want of 4 relaxation, but did pass in 2008, and were eligible in view of relaxation given vide order dt. 5.11.2008, it would be an utter travesty of justice to debar them from eligibility, and since some of the candidates are so allowed to appear, and they have passed, it would be still unjust to debar the candidates who have appeared in the examination of 2007, pursuant to the interim order of the Tribunal, and have qualified the examination, and therefore, the writ petition is required to be dismissed. We have considered the submissions, and have gone through the order dt. 21.7.2006, produced in the writ petition as Annexure-2, and the order dt. 5.11.2008, which was made available for our perusal by learned counsel for the petitioner, and find, that hyper-technically, learned counsel for the petitioner is right, when he says, that in the year 2007 there was no relaxation, and the relaxation given vide order dt. 21.7.2006, as well as vide order dated 5.11.2008, was given in respect of particular examination of 2006 and 2008 only, but then, in our view, in view of the factual scenario, viz. that despite absence of specific power of relaxation being available under the rules being Annexure-1, the Board has been granting relaxation, and purportedly as one time measure, relaxation has been granted in 2006 and 2008, this, coupled with the fact, that the candidates, who were allowed to appear in 2007, and could not qualify all the papers were allowed in 2008, 5 consequent upon the order dt. 5.11.2008, and they did qualify, to accept the stand of the learned counsel for the petitioner, would result into bringing about failure of justice. We consider, or visualize a situation, that if consequent upon interim order of the Tribunal, candidates would not have appeared in 2007, even in that situation, they could have very well appeared; in the examination of 2008, then, simply because they approached appropriate Tribunal, and appeared in the examination pursuant to the interim order of the Court, they should not be visited with the penalty of being ineligible, in view of the fact, that vide order dt. 5.11.2008, blanket relaxation has been granted regarding age and number of opportunities, ofcourse again as onetime measure. In our view, in view of the above, it is not a fit case, wherein interference is required to be made in our writ jurisdiction. These writ petitions are, therefore, dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /Sushil/