Kamal Meena vs Union Of India & Anr.

Per: Ms. Ranjana Shahi, Member (J)

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicants under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:-

It is the case of the applicant that, on being successful in the selection process, an offer of appointment for the post of Divisional Accountant (Probationer), vide No.WM-1-(2016-17)/PF/985 dated 28.06.2016, was issued. The applicant accepted the offer of appointment on 09.08.2016. Subsequently, he was issued an appointment letter vide office memo No.WM-1-Appu (Posting)-D.A.(P)-2016-17/2693 dated 12.08.2016, whereby he was posted to Rehabilitation Office, Kosi Project, Supaul. The applicant joined the said office on 13.08.2016 (F/N).

2(a). In Para (1) of the offer of appointment, it is mentioned that the applicant was on probation for a period of two years, during which his appointment was purely temporary and governed by the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 [in short ‘CCS (TS) Rules, 1965]. In terms of para (3) of the said offer of appointment, he was required to appear in the Divisional Accountants Grade Examination after rendering a continuous service of one year. It is also mentioned that, on account of failure to pass the said examination during probation period including extended period of probation, he was liable to be discharged from the service.

2(b). However, the applicant failed to pass the examination within the normal probation period of two years. As such, the Competent Authority extended the probation period by a further two years. In other words, total probation period granted was four years, which ended on 12.08.2020, and the same was again extended up to 24.10.2020. Still, having not passed the required Divisional Accountant Grade Examination, his services were terminated vide impugned order dated 21.10.2020. Hence, the applicant has filed the present Original Application mainly on the ground that the respondents should have granted him more than six attempts and that, on one occasion, when the examination was held on 22.05.2018, he could not participate due to death of his brother-in-law on 16.05.2018.

On the other hand, the respondents, in their reply, have stated that the applicant was issued an offer of appointment letter wherein there was a specific condition that the appointment will be purely temporary and would be governed by the CCS (TS) Rules, 1965, as amended from time to time, and would be liable to termination without assigning any reasons under Rule 5 ibid. He would be on probation for a period of two years from the date of appointment. If, however, he was found unsuitable for retention during the period of probation, he was likely to be removed from service.

3(a). After rendering continuous service of one year, he would be eligible to appear in the Divisional Accountants Grade Examination. On account of failure to pass the said examination during the probation period, including extended probation period, he will be liable to be discharged from service. During the period of probation, he would undergo a course of training both in the Public Works Division / Sub-Divisional Office and in the Works Wing and other sections of the A & E / Audit office. The period of training would be of two years. He would be allowed to appear in the Divisional Accountants Grade Examination only after undergoing training of at least one year.

3(b). That three normal chances were given to pass the examination during the period of probation. However, if the Accountant General (A&E), Bihar, Patna, was satisfied that there were special circumstances justifying the concession, he could, at his discretion, allow three additional chances. If, he was unsuccessful in passing the Divisional Accountants Grade Examination within the prescribed number of consecutive chances (including additional chances, if allowed) or exhausted the chances by not availing himself of any of the available chances, he would be liable to be removed from service.

3(c). The respondents have further stated that the applicant was allowed three normal chances to appear in and pass the requisite examination, but he failed to pass the Divisional Accountants Grade Examination. However, the Competent Authority extended his period of probation up to four years and further granted him as many as three additional chances to pass the required examination within the extended period of probation. Yet, he failed. As such, in terms of the offer of appointment letter, and after following the due process, the services of the applicant were terminated with effect from 21.10.2020.

3(d). The respondents have further stated in their reply that the applicant had informed that, on one of the occasions when the examination was held from 21.05.2018 to 25.05.2018, he could not appear due to death of his brother-in-law on 16.05.2018, but as per the provision contained of Paragraph No.6 of Annexure II of C&AG’s MSO (Admn.) Vol.-I “in the case of a candidate who is not able to appear at the examination because of a properly certified personal illness, the Accountant General made at his discretion ignore this chance against the total number of changes available to him”.

Heard Shri Raghunandan Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Manu Bhargava, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Central Government and perused the materials, documents and pleadings available on record.

The applicant was issued an offer of appointment for the post of Divisional Accountant on specific terms and conditions, as per which his appointment was purely temporary, liable to be terminated without assigning any reasons, and he was to be on probation for a period of two years from the date of appointment and was mandatorily required to pass the Divisional Accountants Grade Examination during the period of probation. The applicant accepted the conditions enumerated in the offer of appointment, upon which he was appointed subject to the fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment.

While accepting the offer of appointment, the employee agrees to the terms of contract of appointment. As per the offer of appointment letter, the applicant was required to pass the Divisional Accountants Grade Examination, for which he was given as many as three chances, but he failed. Yet, the respondents gave him as many as three additional chances. His initial period of probation of two years was also extended by a further two years, making it four years, yet he could not pass the requisite examination. Thus, he has no right to claim more chances, nor has he been able to show any rule or law to establish his entitlement to more chances beyond the already given six chances to him.

Government employment is the most coveted service in our country. Against each vacancy, hundreds of candidates apply. The taxpayer is entitled to have the services of the best amongst the candidates. A person who is unable to pass the mandatory examination even after as many as six chances, in our considered mind, does not deserve such appointment. Such public post should be filled by more competent and meritorious aspirants.

In view of the foregoing, the applicant, having failed to qualify the requisite examination despite being granted six chances and an extended period of probation, has no right to claim any further opportunity in the absence of any rule conferring such a right. The present Original Application, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending MAs, if any, stand closed.