UNION OF INDIA Vs. SUSANTA MOHANTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BHARAT Sanchar Nigam Ltd., which is a Government of India Enterprise, has filed this writ application challenging the order dated 28.3.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 443 of 2010.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is that the opposite party had appeared at the Internal Competitive Junior Accounts Officer Examination against the 40% quota during January, 2010 and secured 56.5 marks in Paper -V against the minimum pass mark of 60. He had secured minimum pass marks in respect of all other papers excluding Paper -V, for which the opposite party made a representation to the petitioner for allowing him 3 grace marks in terms of the DoT (Department of Telecommunications) Circular dated 20.06.1994 and rounding up the marks in Paper -V to 60. Since the said representation of the opposite party was rejected, he filed an Original Application being O.A. No.443 of 2010 before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

(3.) THE Tribunal by its order dated 28.3.2011, while holding that the circular dated 20.6.1994 issued by the DoT has the application to the case of the opposite party, directed the BSNL to extend the benefit of grace marks to the opposite party in Paper -V by rounding up the same to 60 and take consequential action. The Tribunal also directed that since there may be similarly circumstanced candidates as that of the applicant - opposite party having failed in one of the papers in the examination in question, who might have not approached the Court of Law or Tribunal, the BSNL should extend the benefit of DoT Circular dated 20.6.1994 to all similarly situated persons as that of the present opposite party. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the Tribunal has gone wrong in holding that the DoT Circular dated 20.6.1994 has the application to the case of the opposite party. According to him, after the BSNL came into existence, the circular dated 20.6.1994 issued by DoT has lost its force. He emphatically submitted that when the circular dated 11.8.2006 (Annexure -4) came into force superseding the earlier circular dated 20.6.1994, the provision for grant of grace marks, as has been provided in 1994 circular has not been saved. He drew our attention to the circular under Annexure -4, which is regarding holding Departmental Examination of Junior Accounts Officer (JAO) Part -II under old (DoT) syllabus in the month of March, 2006 and issues relating to grant of grace marks and preparation of Exemption List.