Exemption from Departmental Examinations for Higher Pay Scale Benefits Due to Administrative Failure in Conducting Exams.

The petitioners, serving as Gram Sevaks, were initially granted the benefit of the second higher pay scale in 2012.

This benefit was withdrawn in 2014 because they had not cleared the CCC (Computer Concept Course) examination

Following a 2015 policy amendment, employees over 50 years of age were exempted from the CCC exam

a subsequent amendment in 2014 required Gram Sevaks to clear a departmental examination for promotion to Circle Inspector to remain eligible for the higher pay scale

The petitioners appeared for the departmental exams but failed to clear them before retirement

They submitted a representation on 06.08.2018, arguing that the department failed to conduct the exams twice a year as required by rules, thereby depriving them of the mandated three attempts

1. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the second higher pay scale despite not clearing the departmental examination prior to retirement

2. Whether the respondents’ failure to conduct departmental examinations twice a year, as per the rules, constitutes a valid ground to grant benefits to the petitioners

Gujarat Civil Services Computer Competency Training and Examination Rules, 2006 (amended 2015), which provides CCC exemption for employees over 50

Extension Officer, Class III (Panchayat)/Taluka Panchayat Officer, Departmental Examination Rules, 2009 (amended 2014), which mandates clearing departmental exams for specific pay benefits

Gujarat Civil Services (Conditions of Service relating to Departmental Examination) (General) Rules, 2015, which stipulates the frequency of examinations and the number of permitted attempts

Government Resolutions dated 16.08.1994 and 02.07.2007 regarding the criteria for higher pay scale eligibility

The court noted that while the CCC exemption was clearly applicable to the petitioners [para 9], the entitlement to the higher pay scale was hindered by their failure to pass the departmental examinations

The petitioners raised a significant procedural point: the respondents may have breached statutory rules by failing to hold the requisite number of exam sessions, thus exhausting the petitioners' eligibility through administrative lapse rather than candidate failure

The court observed that the record lacked sufficient detail regarding the total number of examinations conducted between 2014 and the petitioners' retirement dates

Consequently, the court found it premature to rule on the merits and determined that the respondent authorities must first address the petitioners' long-pending representation concerning these procedural irregularities

It directed the petitioners to submit a comprehensive fresh representation within four weeks

The concerned respondent is ordered to decide this new representation along with the earlier representation dated 06.08.2018 via a speaking order within eight weeks of receipt

The court granted the petitioners the liberty to challenge any adverse decision resulting from this process in the future