Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vinay Krishna Mehta vs M/O Finance on 22 November, 2022
1
O.A. No. 3379/2022
M.A. No. 3400/2022
Item No. 04
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 3379/2022
M.A. No. 3400/2022
This the 22nd Day of November, 2022
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A)
Vinay Krishna Mehta,
C 17, Nisarg Dutt CHS,
Railway Colony, Pada No. 4,
Lokmanya Nagar,
Thane -400606.
........ ..Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. Bharat Garg)
Versus
1. Union of India,
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
CBDT, North Block,
New Deihi - 110 001
2. The Director,
O/o Director of Income Tax,
CBDT, Mayur Bhavan, 5" Floor
Cannaught Circus,
New Delhi - 110 001
3. The Principal Chief Commissioner,
O/o Principal CCIT, Pune Circle,
Aaykar Bhavan, 12.
Sadhu Vaswani Road,
Pune- 411 001
....Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. Hanu Bhaskar)
2
O.A. No. 3379/2022
M.A. No. 3400/2022
Item No. 04
ORDER (ORAL)
Hon'ble Mr. Tarun Shridhar, Member (A) By virtue of the present OA, the applicant seeks the following relief(s) :
"1. Declare the actions of the office of respondent no. 2 of not properly & completely checking the answer sheet of "Income-tax & Accountancy (Subjective type) paper of the applicant as illegal, arbitrary, unjust, and unconstitutional & in contravention to the Rule-X of Revaluation & Representation of Amended Departmental Examination rules for Income Tax Officer, 2009.
2. Direct the Respondent No. 2 to promptly revaluate and/or re-total the answer sheet of the applicant of "lncome-tax & Accountancy (Subjective type) paper conducted by the respondent no. 2 on 25" October 2021 and result of which was declared by the respondent no. 2 on 31 December 2021.
3. Direct the Respondent No. 2 to release the amended result of "income-tax & Accountancy" (Subjective type) paper of the applicant, immediately after the revaluation of the same and execute the complete process expeditiously 4 Any other relief in favor of the applicant and against the respondents which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit in the present facts and circumstance & in the interest of justice and equity."
2. Briefly stated that the applicant who is working as an Income Tax Inspector appeared in the departmental examination for promotion to the post of Income Tax Officer (ITO). The claim of the applicant is that the answer sheets in the aforesaid examination have not been evaluated properly to the effect that some of the answers which he had correctly attempted have not been marked as to give him credit. He seeks re-evaluation of his answer sheet in terms of the Departmental Examination Rule for Income Tax Officer-2009 which have been quoted by the applicant in paras-5 and 6 of the OA. For sake of clarity, the said provision is reproduced below: 3 O.A. No. 3379/2022 M.A. No. 3400/2022 Item No. 04
" a) No request shall be entertained under any circumstances for revaluation or retotalling of the Answer Scripts for objective type papers.
b) The request for recounting of marks will however, be entertained for the subjective type paper, if a representation is submitted by the candidate to the Chief Commissioner/Commissioner (In-charge of Examination) within 45 days from the date of issue of the result by the Directorate or 30 days of the declaration of the result by concerned CCIT/CIT (Exam), whichever is earlier.
For this purpose the date of uploading of result on the departmental website " incometaxinda.gov.in" shall be taken to be the date of issue of result by the directorate."
3. Learned counsel for the respondents raises a preliminary objection with respect to the jurisdiction of this Bench of the Tribunal by pointing out that the applicant is resident of Thane and is also posted in the state of Maharastra and further he appeared in the said examination also in the state of Maharastra. Therefore, the jurisdiction for adjudication of this matter would rest with the Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the examination has been conducted by the Directorate of Income Tax located in New Delhi and it is that office which had issued the admit card and subsequently compiled the result, therefore, part action also lies in Delhi. Accordingly, the jurisdiction would lie to this Bench.
5. We have considered the objection raised by the respondents and submissions made by the applicant. Without going into the facts of the case, as stated by the learned counsel, we are of the considered view that we have jurisdiction of the matter in terms of the clear provision set out in Rule 6 of Central Administrative Tribunal, (Procedure Rule 1987). Accordingly, the issue of jurisdiction is settled and OA taken up for hearing. 4 O.A. No. 3379/2022 M.A. No. 3400/2022 Item No. 04
6. Issue notice to Mr. Hanu Bhaskar, learned standing counsel, who appears on advance service and accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
7. To air his grievance, the applicant has submitted comprehensive representations to the Competent Authority and such representations are placed at Annexure A/7 and Annexure A/9 of the OA. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the respondents have not taken any decision upon those representations so far.
8. Considering the issue involved in the present OA, we are of the considered view that the OA can be disposed of at this admission stage itself. Accordingly, with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, we dispose of this OA with a direction to the Competent Authority to take a decision on the aforementioned pending representations of the applicant in accordance with Rules by passing an appropriate reasoned and speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.
9. We make it clear that while passing the aforesaid directions we have neither commented upon nor examined the merit of the case of the applicant.
There shall be no orders as to costs.
(Tarun Shridhar) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/arti/