TMI Blog2017 (4) TMI 769X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould 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" - W. P. (S) No. 3897 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 2-3-2017 - H. C. Mishra And S. N. Pathak, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate. Mr. M.A. Khan, Advocate For the Income Tax Deptt.: Mr. Deepak Roshan, Advocate JUDGMENT Dr. S.N. Pathak, J. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. M.A. Khan, learned counsels for the petitioner and Mr. Deepak Roshan, learned counsel appearing for respondents. 2. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.07.2015, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No. 051/ 00072/ 15 whereby the learned Tribunal has been pleased to decline to pass direction to grant hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi vide O.A. No. 051/ 00022/ 2014 which was dismissed on 17.11.2014 with a direction to the respondents to give sympathetic consideration for redressal of grievance of the petitioner. 5. Pursuant to the direction of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner again filed representation before the authorities for redressal of his grievance. The said representation of the petitioner was however rejected in a mechanical and non-speaking manner vide order dated 16.02.2015. Being aggrieved, the petitioner again moved before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi against the said non-speaking order which was however dismissed vide order dated 07.07.2015 passed in O.A. No. 051/ 00072/ 15. Thereafter, the petitioner having no alternative, moved before this Court by filing instant writ petition. 6. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. M.A. Khan, by assailing the order dated 07.07.2015, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi in O.A. No. 051/ 00072/ 15 argued that the order of the Tribunal as also order dated 24.01.2012 and further order dated 16.02.2015 of the respondents authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rules for ITOs 1988 i.e. the age of the candidate on 1st April of the year of examination should not exceed 55 years (in the case of SC/ST candidates, there shall be no age limit) and the maximum number of chances a candidate can avail is ten. EXPLANATION: For the purpose of counting the number of chances available to a candidate for availing the concession mentioned in 1st Proviso to Rule III above, the number of chances already availed by the candidate under the Old Pattern of examination shall be taken into account. In the calculation of 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 takes the examination or not. Once a candidate has been permitted to appear in the examination, withdrawal of candidature shall not be allowed. The first proviso of Rule III referred to in Rule IV reads as follows: Provided that the partially qualified candidates of the Old Pattern Examination shall also be eligible to appear, for the unqualified papers/ paper only, in the New Pattern examination, 2010 and subsequent years, as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ttempt shall be counted as eligible number. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner is the senior most in the list of aspirants and due to non-consideration of his candidature for promotion to the post of Income Tax Officer shall cause prejudice to him. Learned counsel further submitted that at no point of time the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that his application is against the rule and when after recommendation he appeared in the examination, 'Zero marks was awarded to him in order to eliminate him from the promotion which is a clear case of arbitrariness at the hands of the respondents. Learned Sr. Counsel further drew attention of this Court to Annexure-3 i.e. letter of the Additional Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Ranchi dated 24.01.2012 written to the Director of Income Tax (Inv.), Patna recommending therein calculation of attempts based on filing of examination form is really an injustice to him and will cause irreparable damage to his career. As rightly pointed out, even the prestigious examinations like UPSC, only appearance in the concerned examination is considered as an attempt. Thus, his case is an extremely genuine case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er is incorrect as the Hon ble Central Administrative Tribunal, after considering all the facts, has passed the reasoned order by dismissing the position of the petition. 8. Considering rival submission of the parties and going through the impugned order, this Court is of the view that order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 07.07.2015 in O.A. No. 051/ 00072/ 15, requires no interference. The legal aspects of the rules and provisions as mentioned in Amended Departmental Examination Rules for Income Tax Officers, 2009 is very clear. 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 decisions relied upon by the learned counsel is of no help as the issues involved in that case and the ratio derived at is not so as to deviate the fate of this case an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
