UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus MUKESH KUMAR MEENA

Citation: [2022] 3 S.C.R. 121 · Decided: 28-04-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
121
   [2022] 3 S.C.R. 121
121
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
v.
MUKESH KUMAR MEENA
(Civil Appeal No. 3468 of 2022)
APRIL 28, 2022
[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
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
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.
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
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
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
122
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
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]
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
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. The impugned judgment and
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
972 – distinguished.
Case Law Reference
[2007] 8 SCR 972
distinguished
Para 7
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.3468
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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
123
Nachiketa Joshi, Ms. Niranjana Singh, Mohd. Akhil, P. V.
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
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 whi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.