Case Law Details
Union of India Vs Mukesh Kumar Meena (Supreme Court)
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.
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.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 20.02.2015 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in DBCWP No. 1542 of 2015, by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent herein – original writ petitioner and has set aside the judgment and order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur (hereinafter referred to as the “Tribunal”) in O.A. No. 155 of 2014 by which the learned Tribunal dismissed the said application preferred by the respondent herein – original applicant (hereinafter referred to as “original applicant”) and has directed to extend the grace marks in the subject of “Other Taxes” by treating him as a person belonging to general category, Union of India and Others have preferred the present appeal.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
CASTE BASED DISCRIMINATION: General category candidates who obtained 43 marks in evaluation of paper. have been declared meritorious candidate after giving them benefit of 7 Grace Marks and on the other hand SC/ST category candidates who obtained 48 Marks in evaluation, have been considered non meritorious candidate by way of denying them the benefit of 2 Grace Marks to compete the General Category candidates at par.
Facts : The passing %age for qualifying the Departmental exams for ITOs in the year 2007 is 50% for General category and 45% for SC/ST category.
There are large number of General Category candidates who qualified departmental exams in same year by way of getting benefit of grace marks.
Many general category candidates who obtained 50 & above marks in five papers and 43 to 49 marks in one paper, have been declared passed after adding upto 7 grace marks in his/her result.
However, SC/ST category candidates who obtained 50 or above marks in five papers and 45 to 49 marks in one paper, have been denied the benefit of grace marks.
The departmental examination rules itself are explanatory that prior to 2010, there was no concept of qualifying exams on general standard or relaxed standard.
Betterment exams (reappearing) scheme was introduced in the year 2010. The clarification dated 13.12.2012 issued by the DGIT(Admin), CBDT was issued in r/o of candidates who appeared in betterment exams (reappearing candidates).
However, the above clarification has been applied in the matter of SC/ST candidates who had qualified exams before the issuance of clarification dated 13.12.2012 and never appeared in betterment exams.
Resultantly, the senior SC/ST candidates have been denied promotion against the UNRESERVED Vacancies (open for all) and junior Gen category candidates who qualified exams with the benefit of Grace Marks, have been granted promotion to the cadre of ITO.
This is another way of caste based discrimination and injustice being caused with the SC/ST category candidates.