( 1 ) THE petitioners, who are working in various capacities in the Bharat sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), seek a declaration that the order dated 8. 11. 2005, passed by the second respondent herein, communicating the decision, taken by the first respondent, as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to the orders, dated 13. 7. 2005, passed by this Court in w. P. No. 16015 of 2004 and Batch. The matter relates to relaxation of standards in part-I examination for the post of Junior accounts Officer (JAO ).

( 2 ) THE next superior post for the petitioners is JAO. Appointment to that post is purely by way of promotion, but subject to passing of Part-I and n examinations, conducted for that purpose. The petitioners appeared in the Part-I examination held in the years 1999 and 2003. They did not secure the minimum qualifying marks. Drawing analogy from the relaxation granted by the respondents, in respect of the promotion to the post of Junior Telecom officer (JTO), the petitioners approached the Hyderabad Bench of Central administrative Tribunal, by filing O. A. No. 1313 of 2003. The Tribunal disposed of the O. A. , on 6. 1. 2004, directing the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioners herein, for extending the benefit of reduction of qualifying marks in part-I and n examinations for the post of jao held in the years 1999 and 2003, on the same lines, as was done vide orders dated 10. 3. 2003, for the posts of JTOs. The respondents passed an order dated 7. 4. 2004, stating that it is not possible to accede to the request of the petitioners. Challenging the same, the petitioners filed w. P. No. 16015 and 16413 of 2004. The writ petitions were allowed and the respondents were directed to consider the matter afresh, keeping in view the relaxation given for the posts of JTOs.

( 3 ) IN compliance with the direction issued by this Court, the first respondent considered the matter and rejected the representation of the petitioners. The same was communicated through the impugned order.

( 4 ) SRI V. Jagapathi, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that except for the difference as to the nature of duties, the posts of JTO and JAO are similar in all respects, and when the respondents have relaxed the standards for the qualifying examination for the post of JTO, there was absolutely no basis for according a differential treatment to the petitioners. He contends that on account of the onerous standards prescribed by the respondents in the examinations for the post of JAO, majority of the candidates who have the requisite seniority failed in the examination, and as a result, about 2000 posts remained vacant. He alleges that except repeating the stand taken by them, while passing the order dated 7. 4. 2004, the respondents did not indicate any other grounds.

( 5 ) LEARNED Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that no individual can claim relaxation of standards or percentage of marks as of right. He alleges that adequate number of candidates have cleared the examination and the contention of the petitioners that posts are vacant, on account of non-availability of candidates, is not correct.

( 6 ) THIS can be said to be the third round of litigation, insofar as it relates to the claim of the petitioners, for relaxation of the standards in the qualifying examination, for promotion to the post of JAO. The grounds urged by the petitioners are that the standards in the test are very high; and that the respondents have discriminated, in the matter of relaxation. Before dealing with these contentions, the parameters for the promotion to the said two categories of posts need to be taken note of.

( 7 ) THE post of JTO is on technical side, whereas the JAO is on accounts side. 50% of the posts of JTO are filled through direct recruitment, 15% through promotion from departmental candidates and 35% by holding a competitive examination, restricting the participation, to the service candidates. In contrast, the appointm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document