BHANWAR LAL MEENA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set aside the order dated 23rd March, 2011, whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal (here-in-after to be referred as 'Tribunal') dismissed the Original Application No. 208/2010 with Misc. Application No. 220/2010 filed by the petitioner Bhanwar lal Meena.

(2.) Skipping unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed in Group D on 6th February, 1989, through regular mode of selection/recruitment. The petitioner was promoted on the post of Audit Clerk on 31st October, 1995 and thereafter, was further promoted to the post of Auditor in the year 2005, but since he could not pass the departmental examination for Auditor even in six consecutive chances, he was reverted to the post of Audit Clerk w.e.f. 2nd June, 2008. After reversion to the post of Clerk, he was eligible to get three more chances to take the examination in terms of Para 9.4.2 of CAG's MSO (Administrative) Volume-I. It is further stated that the petitioner appeared with full preparation in the DCT examination. Paper-I comprised of two parts; Paper-A and Paper-B. The petitioner was exempted in Paper-A of Paper-I as also in Paper-II. In Part-B of Paper-I, he secured 17 marks out of 60 and in Paper-III, he secured 48 marks out of 100. Thus, the petitioner was admittedly exempted in Part-A of Paper-I and Paper-II. He was declared to have passed the examination in Paper-III.

(3.) The only and short controversy involved in the present petition is that the petitioner was required to have obtained 24 marks (40% of 60), but he was shown to have secured only 17 marks out of 60. The petitioner, then submitted a representation dated 3rd December, 2009 to the Principal Accountant General. His representation was carefully considered. Principal Accountant General also went through the answer script of applicant and found that his answer script was duly and fairly evaluated and marks awarded to him were in consistence with the answers written by him and total of marks was also correct. These facts were communicated to the petitioner vide well reasoned and speaking order dated 11th December, 2009.