2017 (4) TMI 769 - HC - Income Tax

Promotion on the post of Income Tax Officer - qualification in the examination - number of attempts - Held that - Upon going through the rules, it is crystal clear that in the calculation maximum number of chances actually availed by the candidate, the chances for which he is allowed to appear in the examination shall be taken into account irrespective of the fact whether the candidate appears in the examination or not. Thus, there cannot be any dispute on this point as the rule position is very clear. The applicant s contention on this point, therefore, not considered valid. The learned Tribunal has rightly held in para-6 of the order dated 07.07.2015, that the case of the applicant has been rejected on merit as well as on legal grounds. The Tribunal s observation was not a direction to the respondents. The Tribunal merely expressed hope that if any sympathetic consideration can be given within the Rules, the authorities will do so. Since the authorities could find no Rule to support his case they have rightly rejected his case. The Tribunal cannot give any direction contrary to the Rules. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. In the earlier order of the Tribunal dated 17.11.2014, the Tribunal had observed that, in his representation, the applicant had admitted that he was fully aware of the fact that filing of application for examination is considered as an attempt for the said examination, whether the candidate appeared or not in the said examination

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the order dated 07.07.2015 by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
2. Challenge to the order dated 24.01.2012 regarding the number of examination attempts.
3. Request for promotion to the post of Income Tax Officer based on the 2011 examination.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Challenge to the order dated 07.07.2015 by the Central Administrative Tribunal:
The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's order, which declined to direct the respondents to grant him a promotion to the post of Income Tax Officer. The Tribunal had dismissed the petitioner's application, stating that his case was rejected on merit and legal grounds. The Tribunal noted that it could not issue directions contrary to the rules and merely expressed hope for sympathetic consideration within the rules, which the authorities did not find applicable.

2. Challenge to the order dated 24.01.2012 regarding the number of examination attempts:
The petitioner argued that he had appeared for the departmental examination eight times, contrary to the respondents' claim of twelve attempts. The petitioner contended that the respondents' calculation was incorrect and that actual appearances should be counted. The respondents, however, maintained that the rules clearly stated that the number of chances availed includes those where the candidate was allowed to appear, regardless of actual attendance.

3. Request for promotion to the post of Income Tax Officer based on the 2011 examination:
The petitioner sought promotion based on his qualification in the 2011 examination, arguing that he was shown as 'fail' due to the erroneous calculation of attempts. The petitioner emphasized that he had an unblemished career and that the denial of promotion was arbitrary and unjust. The respondents and the Tribunal upheld the rule that the number of chances includes all permitted attempts, which led to the petitioner being awarded zero marks and deemed ineligible for promotion.

Conclusion:
The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that the rules were clear regarding the calculation of examination attempts. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the authorities acted within the rules and that the petitioner's case did not warrant interference. The Court also noted that the decisions cited by the petitioner did not apply to the facts of this case.