# UNION OF INDIA AND ORS v. MUKESH KUMAR MEENA

- **Citation:** [2022] 3 S.C.R. 121
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2022-04-28
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 3468 of 2022
- **Bench:** M. R. Shah, B. V. Nagarathna
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/union-of-india-and-ors-v-mukesh-kumar-meena-35926
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

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 respondentoriginal 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

## Text

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 respondentoriginal 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 which the High
Court has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondent
herein - original writ petitioner and has set aside the judgment and order
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur
(hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") in O.A. No. 155 of 2014 by
which the learned Tribunal dismissed the said application preferred by
the respondent herein - original applicant (hereinafter referred to as
"original applicant") and has directed to extend the grace marks in the
subject of "Other Taxes" by treating him as a person belonging to general
category, Union of India and Others have preferred the present appeal.
2. That the original applicant belongs to Scheduled Tribes(ST)
category. Heentered in services of the Department of Income Tax being
appointed as Lower Division Clerk (LDC). He was promoted to the
posts of Tax Assistant, Sr. Tax Assistant and Office Superintendent.
With a view to regulate the departmental examination for Income Tax
Inspectors, the competent authority introduced modified rules for
Departmental Examination for Income Tax Inspectors - 1998
(hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 1998"). The said Rules were
made applicable for the departmental examination to be held in 1998 and
onwards. The departmental examination under the Rules, 1998 consisted
of six papers namely viz. Income Tax Law and Assessment, Other Taxes,
Book Keeping, Office Procedure, Examination of Accounts and Hindi
Test. A candidate securing minimum 45% marks in five subjects except
in Hindi was entitled to be declared as pass. For the members of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes the minimum marks required to
qualify the examination was 40% of the maximum marks.
2.1 For the benefit of those candidates, who marginally failed to
secure minimum marks/percentage irrespective of their category on
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. MUKESH KUMAR MEENA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
124
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
falling short of passing,upto five marks, the Central Board of Direct
Taxes introduced policy of awarding grace marks. The original applicant
secured the marks in different subjects as under:-
2.2 Thus, the original applicant secured more than 45% marks in
each subject except the subject of "Other Taxes". According to the
original applicant, he was entitled for grace marks in the subject of "Other
Taxes",but the same were not given to him as he was treated qualified
in the category of Scheduled Tribes. Therefore, it gave cause to him to
approach the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur
by way of filing O.A. No. 155 of 2014.
2.3 Before the Tribunal, it was the case on behalf of the original
applicant that though he belongs to ST category and he passed in the
examination with relaxed standards of marks provided for SCs and STs
category, but he actually got 43 marks in one of the subjects and had he
been given two grace marks in the "Other Taxes" paper in the
departmental examination, he would have been declared passed in 2007
itself on his own merit and would have been eligible to get the benefit of
promotion against general vacancies.
2.4 The learned Tribunal by a reasoned and detailed judgment
and order dismissed the said application by observing that the CBDT
circular providing grace marks cannot be interpreted to mean that a
person, who has passed in his own category can be given further grace
marks to enable him to move in the general category on his own merit.
The learned Tribunal also considered the object and purpose of introducing
the grace marks policy, namely with the purpose of enabling marginally
failing candidatesto pass the examination.
2.5 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order
passed by the learned Tribunal dismissing the O.A., the respondent herein
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
125
- original applicant preferred the writ petition before the High Court. By
the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench of the High Court
relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar
Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Ors., (2007)
8 SCC 785 has allowed the said writ petition and has quashed and set
aside the judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal and has
directed the Department to extend grace marks to him in the subject of
"Other Taxes" by treating him as a person belonging to general category.
2.6 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment
and order passed by the High Court, the Union of India and others have
preferred the present appeal.
3. Shri Nachiketa Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellants - Union of India and others has vehemently submitted
that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is beyond
the grace marks policy declared by the Central Board of Direct Taxes.
3.1 It is submitted that while passing the impugned judgment and
order, the Hon'ble High Court has not at all appreciated the object and
purpose of allowing the grace marks. It is submitted that as rightly
observed by the learned Tribunal, the grace marks were to be provided
only for the purpose of enabling marginally failing candidates to pass the
examination.
3.2 It is submitted that as rightly observed by the learned Tribunal,
the grace marks policy was not applicable in favour of a person, who
has passed in his own category. It is submitted that it was not meant to
give further grace marks to enable a person, who has passed in his own
category to move to the general category on his own merit.
3.3 It is further submitted that the Hon'ble High Court has as
such erred in applying the decision of this Court in the case of Rajesh
Kumar Daria (supra). It is submitted that the said decision shall not be
applicable to the facts of the case on hand.
3.4 Making above submissions, it is prayed to allow the present
appeal.
4. Present appeal is vehemently opposed by Dr. Sumant Bhardwaj,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent - original applicant.
4.1 It is vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances
of the case and relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. MUKESH KUMAR MEENA
[M. R. SHAH, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
126
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 3 S.C.R.
Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra), the Hon'ble High Court has rightly
directed the Department to give grace marks to the original applicant in
the subject of "Other Taxes" so that he may switch over to general
category and/or get the promotion in the general category. It is submitted
that if the grace marks are given to the original applicant, in that case, he
may get the promotion in the general category.
4.2 It is submitted that some other employees belonging to reserved
categories were awarded five grace marks despite the fact that they
were having the requisite minimum passing marks of 40% meant for
SC/ST category.
4.3 Making above submissions and relying upon the decision of
this Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra), it is prayed to
dismiss the present appeal.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
at length. We have also considered and gone through the grace marks
policy declared by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT).
6. The CBDT introduced the grace marks policy with the purpose
of enabling marginally failing candidates to pass the examination. At this
stage, it is required to be noted that as per the Rules, 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 present case, the
respondent - original applicant secured more than 45% marks in each
subject except the subject of "Other Taxes". In the subject of "Other
Taxes", he secured 43% marks. However, the minimum requirement
was 40% so far as the respondent - original applicant is concerned, as
he belonged to ST category and so he passed in his owncategory.
However, it is the case on behalf of the original applicant that as the
minimum marks required for generalcategory candidate was 45% and if
he would have been awarded two marks by way of grace in the subject
of "Other Taxes", in 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 aforesaid
was rightly not accepted by the learned Tribunal. The benefit of the
grace marks was not to allow the reserved category candidate to switch
over to general category.
6.1 At the cost of repetition, it is observed that the CBDT introduced
the grace marks policy with the purpose of enabling the marginally failing
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
127
candidates to pass in the examination. 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 aforesaid 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. That was not the object and purpose
of the grace marks policy.
7. Now, so far as the reliance placed upon the decision of this
Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra) followed by the
High Court is concerned, the said decision is not appliable to the facts of
the case on hand. The specific grace marks policy was introduced by
the CBDT, which was for marginally failing candidates so as to enable
them to pass the examination. Therefore, the said decision relied upon
by the respondent herein - original applicant is not applicable at all.
8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
impugned judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High
Court is unsustainable and the same deserves to bequashed and set
aside and is accordingly quashed and set aside. The judgment and order
passed by the learned Tribunal dismissing the O.A. stands restored.
Present appeal is accordingly allowed. However, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Nidhi Jain
Appeal allowed.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. v. MUKESH KUMAR MEENA
[M. R. SHAH, J.]