BHARAT BHUSHAN BADESARA Vs. SPECIAL SECRETARY FINANCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer under the Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Service Rules. 1971 (hereinafter 'the 1971 Rules') vide Order dated December 22, 1999. A condition of his appointment was that during his period of probation he would be required to write and pass departmental examinations before confirmation and in the event of not passing the departmental examination the petitioner would be liable to be discharged from service. The Rajasthan Civil Services (Departmental Examinations) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter 'the 1959 Rules'), more particularly Rule 19 thereof provides that an employee will be given three chances to pass the Departmental Examinations in all the subjects he is required under the relevant rules of his employment. It has been provided that the employee concerned should avail the chances within three years of his becoming eligible for the examination within the same period following the first examination held under these rules. It has been further provided under Rule 19 aforesaid that during the period of three years of becoming eligible, if departmental examination is not held during any year or the employee is prevented from appearing in an examination due to reasons beyond his control (which may be certified as genuine by the Head of Department), the restriction of three chances and the maximum period of three years could be extended to the extent necessary. It has been further provided that however the extension of limits and restriction on chances to appear in the examination shall, in the case of probationers, be limited to the maximum period of probation or the extended period of probation under the respective Service Rules or condition of such appointment.

(2.) The petitioner was thus under an obligation to pass the departmental examination as a probationer ACTO in terms of the 1959 Rules.

(3.) The petitioner appeared in the departmental examination in the year 2000 but passed only five subjects out of seven subjects. Thereafter within the time period provided for in Rule 19 of the 1959 Rules he could not write and pass the remaining two papers for one or the other reason. The case of the petitioner is that he was prevented for the reasons beyond his control from writing the examination as the two remainder papers within the period as provided under Rule 19 of the 1959 Rules, and that subsequently he sought to write examinations for the two remaining subjects at the departmental examination being conducted in the year 2004. He was however not allowed to write the examination. He thus continued as a probationer and was not confirmed as an ACTO. It has been submitted that therefore the writ petition was filed.