V.S. Sirpurkar JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellant was at all material times a Junior Accounts Officer. He had passed Junior Accounts Officer Part-I examination held in 1998. For further promotion, he was required to appear in Junior Accounts Officer Part-II examination. It was held in December, 2000. The syllabus for the said examination consisted of nine papers. Paper IX thereof was a theory paper with the following syllabus:
1. P. & T FHB Volume I (General Principles and cash)
2. P. & T FHB Volume III (Parts I, II and III)
3. P. & T FHB Volume IV
4. P. & T Manual Vol-X
5. P. & T Manual Vol-XIV
6. Telecom Accounts Manual (Chapters 1 to 7 and 11)
7. Books of Accounts Officer Forms, Vol. I
8. Book of P & T Accounts Forms
3. Allegedly, questions in respect of 65 out of 100 marks were framed out of the prescribed syllabus. It is stated that question No. 1(b), 2(a), 2(b), 3 and 5 of paper IX were covered in F.B.H. Vol-1 under different chapters which were not prescribed in the syllabus.
Our attention in this behalf has been drawn to the following chart:
4. Appellant did not pass the said examination. He made a representation for declaration of his results by a letter dated 25.9.2002.
It is stated that the Government issued directions pursuant whereto they became entitled to obtain six grace marks in any one of the subjects for being declared qualified in JAO-Part II examination. Despite grant of grace marks, he did not qualify.
5. Appellant filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal questioning the right of the respondents to prescribe questions in paper IX of JAP Part II examination 2000 out of the syllabus. A direction was sought for against the respondents to award minimum qualifying marks in that paper.
By reason of a judgment and order dated 23.4.2004, the Tribunal allowed the said application directing:
Now since sufficient time has passed after the examination held in December 2000 and we are told by the ld. Counsel for the respondents that another examination has already taken place for JAO Part-II, in which all the applicants have appeared for all the papers including Paper-IX, it would not be advisable to hold any re-examination in Paper-IX at this stage. However, in the interest of justice, it would be proper to award minimum qualifying marks to each of the seven applicants, namely, 33 marks in Paper-IX. Since as per rules, 33% marks are to be obtained by the applicants in each of the papers and 35 per cent marks in the aggregate, the result would be her only 3 candidates, namely, N. Lokanadham, K. Subrahamanyeswara Rao and I. Lakshmi would pass all the papers, after being given minimum pass marks in paper-IX and they will clear the JAO Part-II Examination, but the remaining four applicants of the two OAs who are short of the minimum qualifying marks in other papers besides Paper-IX, would as a result not get the benefit of passing the JAO Part-II Examination, after being given the minimum pass marks in Paper-IX and they will have to appear again for the JAO Part-II Examination in future to clear all the papers. In the result, both the OAs stand disposed of with the direction to the respondents to award all the seven applicants the minimum qualifying ........