Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: The Division Bench of M.R. Shah* and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., reversed the impugned order of the Rajasthan High Court whereby the High Court had directed  Income Tax Department to grant grace marks to the applicant and treat him as a person belonging to general category.

Restoring the findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Court held that the CBDT had introduced a grace marks policy to enable marginally failing candidates to pass the examination and the purpose of benefit was not to allow the reserved category candidate to switch over to the general category. The Court held,

“…once the respondent – original applicant passed in his own category, there was no question of allowing/granting him any further grace marks.”


The original applicant, who belonged to the Scheduled Tribes (ST) category, was working as a lower Division Clerk in the Department of Income Tax. Later on, 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. As per the modifications, a candidate securing a minimum of 45% marks in five subjects except in Hindi was entitled to be declared as pass. For the members of SCs and STs, the minimum qualifying mark was 40%. Further, for the benefit of those candidates who marginally failed to secure minimum marks, irrespective of their category, on falling short of passing up to five marks, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) introduced the ​​​​​policy of awarding grace marks.

It was the case of the original applicant that he had secured more than 45% marks in each subject except the subject of “Other Taxes”. Hence, he was entitled to grace marks in the subject of “Other Taxes”, but the same was not given to him as he was treated qualified in the category of Scheduled Tribes. The applicant contended that since he had got 43 marks in “Other Taxes” had he been given two grace marks, he would have been declared eligible for promotion against general vacancies.

Findings of the Tribunal and the High Court 

The Tribunal, by a reasoned and detailed judgment and order, dismissed the application preferred by the applicant 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.

However, the said order was reversed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur. The High Court had directed the Income Tax Department to extend the grace marks to the applicant in the subject of “Other Taxes” by treating him as a person belonging to general category.

Analysis and Conclusion  

Observing that the CBDT had introduced the grace marks policy with the purpose of enabling the marginally failing candidates to pass in the examination, the Court opined that once the respondent – original applicant passed in his own category, there was no question of allowing/granting him any further grace marks.

The Court explained that 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 up to five grace marks.

Therefore, the Court opined that the Tribunal had rightly not accepted the arguments of the applicant. Further, the Court held that the High Court, while passing the impugned judgment and order,​​​​​ had not at all appreciated and/or considered in its true spirit the object and purpose of grace marks policy introduced by CBDT.

Consequently, the impugned judgment and order were quashed and set aside. The judgment and order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the O.A. was restored.

[Union of India v. Mukesh Kumar Meena, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 525, decided on 28-04-2022]

*Judgment by: Justice M.R. Shah

Appearance by: 

For Union of India: Advocate Nachiketa Joshi

For the Applicant: Advocate Sumant Bhardwaj

Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has put this report together 

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: A Bench comprising of S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao, JJ. allowed a set of appeals filed against the order of Madras High Court whereby it had allocated 196 grace marks to all candidates who appeared for National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test-UG 2018 examination in Tamil regional language.

In NEET-UG 2018, bi-lingual questions were set in English with an option of additional regional language. The paper consisted of 180 questions; four marks were granted for each correct answer and one mark was deducted for every wrong answer. After the exam, some students filed a writ petition before the Madras High Court. The Court noticed mistranslations in the Tamil version in 49 questions. The High Court decided to give 4 grace marks for each incorrectly translated question to nearly 24,000 students who wrote the exam in Tamil. As a result, each of such students was entitled to a total of 196 grace marks. Aggrieved thereby, instant appeals were preferred by CBSE and other students.

The Supreme Court held the High Court’s order to be manifestly arbitrary, unjustified and unsustainable. The Court observed that students appearing for the NEET-UG applied for admission in MBBS/BDS courses which are taught entirely in English. The expert committee which had set the examination had given clear instructions that require the students to refer to the English version in case of ambiguity. Knowledge of the subject in English was an implied required. It was noted that there was no grievance regarding any difficulty about the questions in English. It was observed that words with imprecise meaning could have been easily discovered to be faulty and a simple reference to the English version would have clarified the same. The Court held that the students of NEET-UG 2018 were unduly benefitted only because they opted to give the exam in Tamil. In such circumstances, the order of the High Court was set aside and the appeals were allowed. Also, it was directed that from the year 2019-20 onwards, NEET-UG will be conducted by the National Testing Agency.[C.B.S.E v. T.K. Rangarajan,2018 SCC OnLine SC 2526, decided on 22-11-2018]