Case: Union of India and Ors Vs. Mukesh Kumar Meena

a person belonging to general category. 2.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, the Union of India and others have preferred the present appeal. 3. Shri Nachiketa Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants – Union of India and others has vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is beyond the grace marks policy declared by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. 3.1 It is submitted that while passing the impugned judgment and order, the Honble High Court has not at all appreciated the object and purpose of allowing the grace marks. It is submitted that as rightly observed by the learned Tribunal, the grace marks were to be provided only for the purpose of enabling marginally failing candidates to pass the examination. 3.2 It is submitted that as rightly observed by the learned Tribunal, the grace marks policy was not applicable in favour of a person, who has passed in his own category. It is submitted that it was not meant to give further grace marks to enable a person, who has passed in his own category to move to the general category on his own merit. 3.3 It is further submitted that the Honble High Court has as such erred in applying the decision of this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra). It is submitted that the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 3.4 Making above submissions, it is prayed to allow the present appeal. 4. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Dr. Sumant Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – original applicant. 4.1 It is vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case and relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra), the Honble High Court has rightly directed the Department to give grace marks to the original applicant in the subject of Other Taxes so that he may switch over to general category and/or get the promotion in the general category. It is submitted that if the grace marks are given to the original applicant, in that case, he may get the promotion in the general category. 4.2 It is submitted that some other employees belonging to reserved categories were awarded five grace marks despite the fact that they were having the requisite minimum passing marks of 40% meant for SC/ST category. 4.3 Making above submissions and relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra), it is prayed to dismiss the present appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length. We have also considered and gone through the grace marks policy declared by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT). 6. The CBDT introduced the grace marks policy with the purpose of enabling marginally failing candidates to pass the examination. At this stage, it is required to be noted that as per the Rules, 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 present case, the respondent – original applicant secured more than 45% marks in each subject except the subject of Other Taxes. In the subject of Other Taxes, he secured 43% marks. However, the minimum requirement was 40% so far as the respondent – original applicant 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 original applicant 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 aforesaid was rightly not accepted by the learned Tribunal. The benefit of the grace marks was not to allow the reserved category candidate to switch over to general category. 6.1 At the cost of repetition, it is observed 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. 7. Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra) followed by the High Court is concerned, the said decision is not appliable to the facts of the case on hand. The specific grace marks policy was introduced by the CBDT, which was for marginally failing candidates so as to enable them to pass the examination. Therefore, the said decision relied upon by the respondent herein – original applicant is not applicable at all.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]In the present case, the respondent – original applicant secured more than 45% marks in each subject except the subject of Other Taxes. In the subject of Other Taxes, he secured 43% marks. However, the minimum requirement was 40% so far as the respondent – original applicant 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 original applicant 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 aforesaid was rightly not accepted by the learned Tribunal. The benefit of the grace marks was not to allow the reserved category candidate to switch over to general category.6.1 At the cost of repetition, it is observed 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.7. Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra) followed by the High Court is concerned, the said decision is not appliable to the facts of the case on hand. The specific grace marks policy was introduced by the CBDT, which was for marginally failing candidates so as to enable them to pass the examination. Therefore, the said decision relied upon by the respondent herein – original applicant is not applicable at all.