P.SEKAR Vs. R.GUNASEKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These writ petitions are directed against the order dated 17.4.2009 made in O.A. Nos. 961 and 965 of 2006 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and to quash the same. W.P. No. 4819 and 4820 of 2010 are filed by the Respondents 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 and 11 in O.A. Nos. 961 of 2006. W.P. No. 12142 of 2010 is filed by the Respondents 11 and 12 in O.A. No. 965 of 2006. W.P. Nos. 24085 and 24086 of 2010 are filed by the Union of India represented by Secretary to Government, Commercial Tax Department, Government of Puducherry. W.P. Nos. 23389 and 23390 of 2012 are filed by the Respondents 6 and 9 in O.A. No. 961 of 2006. The facts in brief of the case are that the Government of Puducherry has sanctioned 23 posts of Assistant Commercial Tax Officers for the Commercial Tax Department. The Government has framed Recruitment Rules for the said post, issued a notification in GO. 61/F2/A2/2000 dated 17.12.2000 and published the same in the Gazette of Puducherry dated 16.1.2001. As per the recruitment rules, recruitment to the said post has to be made by promotion through limited departmental competitive examination. His Excellency, the Lieutenant Governor, Puducherry has approved the same by order dated 13.6.2002 in G.O. Ms. No. 34/F2/A2/2002/ACTO dated 13.6.2002 and the same was published in the Gazette No. 32 dated 6.8.2002. In the year 2005, 8 vacancies, that is 7 vacancies in the UR Category and 1 vacancy in the SC Category have arisen in the post of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer. The said vacancies are to be filled up by promotion through limited departmental competitive examination by following the syllabus, maximum marks, duration of the examination and type of examination prescribed therefor. The 2nd writ petitioner, the Commercial Tax Department, Puducherry, issued a circular dated 26.12.2005 informing the proposal to fill up the 8 vacancies and the qualifications prescribed and the method of selection and requesting the Heads of Departments/Officers, Government of Puducherry to bring the contents of the said circular to the notice of the concerned, collect applications in the format enclosed thereto, verify the correctness of the particulars furnished therein and forward the same to them on or before 25.1.2006. In response to the above said circular, 72 candidates submitted their applications through their parent Departments to the 2nd petitioner, Commercial Tax Department, Puducherry. The 1st writ petitioner, Government of Puducherry is the nodal agency for conducting all departmental examinations and competitive/recruitment examinations. The Chief Secretary is in charge of the 1st writ petitioner who was requested to conduct the limited departmental competitive examinations for selection of candidates for promotion to fill up the 8 vacancies in the post of the Assistant Commercial Tax Officer. In the mean time, by ID. Note No. A.12020/F2/17/2001/ACTO/PF dated 29.11.2006, the Finance Department informed that two more vacancies have arisen in the said post and the said vacancies are also to be filled up. Consequently, it became necessary to select 10 candidates, that is, 8 under UR category and 2 in the SC/ST Category for recruitment of 10 vacancies in the post of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer.

(2.) The first writ petitioner fixed the date for conducting limited departmental competitive examination as 26.11.2006 and issued hall tickets to 57 eligible candidates. The 1st writ petitioner also enclosed the syllabus prescribed in the order bearing G.O. Ms. No. 34/F2/A2/2002/ACTO dated 13.6.2002 for information to the candidates. Out of 57 eligible candidates, 53 candidates appeared and have written the limited departmental competitive examination. Result was to be published on the next day, that is, on 27.11.2006. While so, the 1st writ petitioner received a Dami Official letter dated 27.11.2006 from the Former Chairman of the III Finance Commission, Government of Puducherry, pointing out that in the examination conducted on 26.11.2006, the questions were asked out of the prescribed syllabus and requested to ensure that the evaluation of the papers is done in such a way that the candidates from the Commercial Tax Office are not unduly benefited and the candidates from other Departments are not affected. Thereafter, the 1st writ petitioner made a verification and found that the mistake pointed out in the said letter was correct and the question Nos. 91 to 100 included in the question paper for the said examination were out of the prescribed syllabus. In such circumstances, on 28.11.2006, the Chief Secretary and the Under Secretary of the 1st writ petitioner assessed the above situation and took a decision to award 10 grace marks to those questions asked out of syllabus uniformly to all the candidates. Accordingly, the answer sheets were sent to the evaluator again and 10 grace marks were uniformly awarded to all the candidates. While awarding grace marks, they have deducted the marks already awarded to the applicants, who have attempted the questions, to the correct answers in respect of the question Nos. 91 to 100, which were asked out of the syllabus. Based on the marks awarded as aforesaid, selection list dated 4.12.2006 was prepared consisting of 10 candidates including the names of the Respondents 4 to 13 in W.P. No. 24085 of 2010. All the 10 selected candidates have joined duty between 15.12.20006 and 20.12.2006 and stated to be working as Assistant Commercial Tax Officers. The applicants in O.A. No. 961 and 965 of 2006 challenged the select list dated 4.12.2006 before the Tribunal, praying to quash the select list and consequently to direct the writ petitioners 1 and 3 to select candidates for appointment to the post of Assistant Commercial Tax Officer on the basis of the marks obtained by them in the limited departmental competitive examinations held on 26.11.2006.

(3.) The applicants in the original applications in O.A. Nos. 961 and 965 of 2006 before the Tribunal contended that there is no provision in the recruitment rules to grant such grace marks and addition of even a single mark in the name and style of grace marks would affect the whole process of selection. Thus, they questioned the method of grant of grace marks which, according to them, has deprived the applicants in getting selected and also questioned the syllabus which is in variance with the recruitment rules. It was, therefore, contended that awarding grace marks and selection of candidates by awarding grace marks is unjustifiable and in such view of the matter, it was contended that the only alternative course available to the Union of India is to conduct the written examination afresh.