UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusMUKESH KUMAR MEENA

                         [2022] 3 S.C.R. 121                           121


                  UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                              A
                                 v.
                   MUKESH KUMAR MEENA
                  (Civil Appeal No. 3468 of 2022)
                          APRIL 28, 2022                               B
        [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
      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      C
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            D
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.               E
      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             F
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                 G
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
                                                                       H
                                121
122            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 3 S.C.R.


A     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]
B
            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 said case would be beyond the object and purpose
C     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.
D     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
E     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
F           972 – distinguished.
                              Case Law Reference
      [2007] 8 SCR 972                  distinguished                Para 7
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.3468
G     of 2022.
             From the Judgment and Order dated 20.02.2015 of the High Court
      of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1542
      of 2015.

H
  UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. MUKESH KUMAR MEENA                              123


      Nachiketa Joshi, Ms. Niranjana Singh, Mohd. Akhil, P. V.               A
Yogeswaran, Abhishek Singh, Nring Chamwibo Zeliang, Raj Bahadur
Yadav, Advs. for the Appellants.
     Dr. Sumant Bhardwaj, Vedant Bhardwaj, Ms. Mridula Ray
Bhardwaj, Vipul Rana, Ms. Ritu Bhardwaj, Advs. for the Respondent.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                             B

      M. R. SHAH, J.
       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            C
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       D
“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.
       2. That the original applicant belongs to Scheduled Tribes(ST)
category. Heentered in services of the Department of Income Tax being        E
appointed as Lower Division Clerk (LDC). He was promoted to the
posts of Tax Assistant, Sr. Tax Assistant and Office Superintendent.
With a view to regulate the departmental examination for Income Tax
Inspectors, the competent authority introduced modified rules for
Departmental Examination for Income Tax Inspectors – 1998                    F
(hereinafter referred to as the “Rules, 1998”). The said Rules were
made applicable for the departmental examination to be held in 1998 and
onwards. The departmental examination under the Rules, 1998 consisted
of six papers namely viz. Income Tax Law and Assessment, Other Taxes,
Book Keeping, Office Procedure, Examination of Accounts and Hindi
Test. A candidate securing minimum 45% marks in five subjects except         G
in Hindi was entitled to be declared as pass. For the members of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes the minimum marks required to
qualify the examination was 40% of the maximum marks.
      2.1 For the benefit of those candidates, who marginally failed to
secure minimum marks/percentage irrespective of their category on            H
124             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 3 S.C.R.


A     falling short of passing,upto five marks, the Central Board of Direct
      Taxes introduced policy of awarding grace marks. The original applicant
      secured the marks in different subjects as under:-



B




C

             2.2 Thus, the original applicant secured more than 45% marks in
      each subject except the subject of “Other Taxes”. According to the
      original applicant, he was entitled for grace marks in the subject of “Other
D     Taxes”,but the same were not given to him as he was treated qualified
      in the category of Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, it gave cause to him to
      approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur
      by way of filing O.A. No. 155 of 2014.
              2.3 Before the Tribunal, it was the case on behalf of the original
E     applicant that though he belongs to ST category and he passed in the
      examination with relaxed standards of marks provided for SCs and STs
      category, but he actually got 43 marks in one of the subjects and had he
      been given two grace marks in the “Other Taxes” paper in the
      departmental examination, he would have been declared passed in 2007
      itself on his own merit and would have been eligible to get the benefit of
F     promotion against general vacancies.
             2.4 The learned Tribunal by a reasoned and detailed judgment
      and order dismissed the said application by observing that the CBDT
      circular providing grace marks cannot be interpreted to mean that a
      person, who has passed in his own category can be given further grace
G     marks to enable him to move in the general category on his own merit.
      The learned Tribunal also considered the object and purpose of introducing
      the grace marks policy, namely with the purpose of enabling marginally
      failing candidatesto pass the examination.
            2.5 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
H     passed by the learned Tribunal dismissing the O.A., the respondent herein
  UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. MUKESH KUMAR MEENA                                125
                   [M. R. SHAH, J.]

– original applicant preferred the writ petition before the High Court. By     A
the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court
relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar
Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Ors., (2007)
8 SCC 785 has allowed the said writ petition and has quashed and set
aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal and has
                                                                               B
directed the Department to extend grace marks to him in the subject of
“Other Taxes” by treating him as 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.
                                                                               C
       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        D
order, the Hon’ble 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.
                                                                               E
       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.
                                                                               F
      3.3 It is further submitted that the Hon’ble 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
                                                                               G
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         H
126             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 3 S.C.R.


A     Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra), the Hon’ble 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.
B
            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.
C           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
D     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
E     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 owncategory.
F     However, it is the case on behalf of the original applicant that as the
      minimum marks required for generalcategory 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
G     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
H
  UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. MUKESH KUMAR MEENA                                127
                   [M. R. SHAH, J.]

candidates to pass in the examination. Once the respondent – original          A
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
                                                                               B
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     C
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         D
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.        E

       8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to bequashed and set
aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The judgment and order
passed by the learned Tribunal dismissing the O.A. stands restored.            F

      Present appeal is accordingly allowed. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Nidhi Jain                                                   Appeal allowed.
                                                                               G




                                                                               H