S.R.Nayak, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, at Hyderabad, (for short "the Tribunal"), dated 26-11-1999 in O.A. No.963 of 1998 dismissing the Original Application filed by the petitioner herein.
(2.) The precise question that arises for our consideration and decision in this writ petition is whether a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste community who seeks appointment to the post of Foreman (GYRO) by way of promotion can claim as a matter of right or as a matter of course that the appointing authority should make good the deficit percentage of marks in the Departmental Qualifying Examination (DQE) by granting relaxation and adding requisite number of grace marks by virtue of the Administrative Instructions contained in G.I. Department of Per. & A.R., O.M. No.36011/6/79-Est. (SCT), dated 19-4-1979.
(3.) Before dealing with this precise question, the relevant background facts that led to the filing of this writ petition be stated briefly as under: The petitioner joined the office of the Admiral Superintendent, Naval Dockyard, Visakhapatnam, the 4th respondent herein on 19-7-1983 as Gyre Fitter Grade-I and later he was appointed as Senior Chargeman (Gyro) on 14-4-1988 by way of direct recruitment. Under the relevant service regulations governing appointment to the post of Foreman (Gyro), an employee serving in the cadre of Gyre Fitter Grade-I should put in atleast two years of qualifying service in that cadre in order to qualify himself to appear for DQE for promotion to the post of Foreman (Gyro). The petitioner herein, after putting in two years qualifying service in the post of Gyre Fitter Grade-I, appeared for the DQ Es conducted in the years 1991 and 1997 and in his both attempts he was not successful for he did not secure prescribed minimum marks of 50% aggregate to qualify himself to be considered for the post of Foreman (Gyro). It appears that no DQE was conducted during the years 1993 and 1996. The petitioner made a representation dated 28-10-1997 to the 4th respondent demanding reasons from him as to why he was not considered for appointment to the post of Foreman (Gyro) and he received reply from the 4th respondent on 22-11-1997 informing the petitioner that he did not qualify himself in the DQE even after application of relaxed standards. The petitioner being aggrieved by the reply of the 4th respondent dated 22-11-1997 filed Original Application No.963 of 1998 before the learned Tribunal assailing the validity of the said reply and for a consequential direction to the respondents to appoint him to the post of Foreman (Gyro) witti all consequential and attendant benefits. The Original Application of the petitioner was contested by the respondents by filing as detailed reply statement.;