Failure to qualify the SAS examination within permissible chances justifies AAO termination and bars prior pay protection.

The applicant was directly recruited through the Staff Selection Commission as Section Officer (Commercial)/Assistant Audit Officer (Commercial) and joined on 8 September 2008.

His appointment required him to qualify in the SOGE(C)/SAS(C) examination during a two-year probationary period, extendable up to four years.

Although the applicant failed to qualify within the prescribed period and six permissible chances, he was allowed to continue up to the August 2013 examination.

As he failed to clear the requisite papers, the respondents terminated his service in the AAO(C) cadre and offered him appointment as an Auditor, expressly stipulating that his AAO(C) pay would not be protected.

The applicant accepted the offer on 24 February 2014.

He subsequently passed the SAS(C) examination held on 27 February 2014 and was promoted as AAO(C) with effect from 17 June 2014 as a departmental candidate, but his pay was fixed at the applicable initial stage rather than restored to his earlier AAO(C) pay.

The applicant challenged the orders dated 21 February 2014, 19 August 2016 and 21 September 2017, contending that the respondents had permitted him to take the examination, issued a hall ticket, and had granted a seventh chance to similarly placed 2010-batch recruits.

The respondents maintained that the applicant had exhausted the permissible six chances and the maximum probationary period, and that the seventh-chance benefit available to the 2010 batch did not apply to him.

Whether the applicant’s termination/reversion from the AAO(C) cadre was invalid because he had been permitted to appear in the February 2014 SAS(C) examination and had been issued a hall ticket.

Whether the applicant was entitled to a further, seventh chance to qualify in the SAS(C) examination on the basis of the benefit granted to certain directly recruited AAOs of the 2010 batch.

Whether the applicant was entitled to restoration or protection of the pay that he had drawn as AAO(C) before accepting appointment as Auditor.

Whether the impugned orders rejecting the applicant’s review and representation were arbitrary, discriminatory or otherwise unlawful.

The Tribunal applied the terms of the applicant’s appointment, under which a directly recruited AAO(C) was required to qualify in the SOGE(C)/SAS(C) examination during a two-year probationary period extendable to a maximum of four years.

It relied on the C&AG Circular dated 7 June 2010, which prescribed six fresh examination chances under the revised scheme, and the Circular dated 24 November 2011, under which the applicant was permitted to use the remaining chances up to August 2013 despite expiry of the extended probationary period.

The Tribunal also applied paragraph 5.5.2 of the C&AG’s MSO (Administration), Volume I, authorising appointment as Auditor where a directly recruited AAO failed to satisfy the prescribed examination requirements.

The offer of Auditor appointment expressly excluded protection of AAO(C) pay, and the applicant’s acceptance of that offer bound him to its conditions.

Rule 24 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 was relevant only to counting past service for leave and pension, not to protecting the applicant’s previous pay.

The principles of promissory estoppel and equality/non-discrimination were considered but found inapplicable because the applicant’s circumstances differed from those of the 2010-batch recruits.

The Tribunal held that the applicant had already completed the maximum four-year probationary period and had exhausted the six permissible examination chances.

His continuation beyond September 2012 was only an administrative concession enabling him to utilise the remaining examination chances up to August 2013; it did not create an entitlement to indefinite continuation or an additional chance.

Permission to appear in the February 2014 examination did not invalidate the prior decision because, by then, the applicant appeared as an Auditor and not as a probationary direct-recruit AAO(C).

The seventh chance granted to the 2010 batch was confined to candidates whose extended probationary periods and applicable circumstances were different; it was not a general benefit available to the applicant.

Further, the applicant knowingly accepted the Auditor appointment on terms expressly denying protection of his AAO(C) pay.

His subsequent promotion as AAO(C) after passing the examination was a fresh promotion as a departmental candidate and did not revive his earlier direct-recruit AAO(C) pay or status.

Accordingly, the Tribunal found no arbitrariness, discrimination, estoppel or procedural infirmity in the impugned orders.

It held that the termination/reversion from the AAO(C) cadre, appointment as Auditor without pay protection, and subsequent fixation of pay upon promotion as AAO(C) were in accordance with the applicable examination rules, probation conditions and the terms accepted by the applicant.

The Original Application was therefore dismissed as devoid of merit, with no order as to costs.