JUDGMENT B.P. DAS, J. : Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., which is a Government of India Enterprise, has filed this writ application challenging the order dated 28.3.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.443 of 2010. 2.The factual matrix of the case is that the opposite party had appeared at the Internal Competitive Junior Accounts Officer Examination against the 40% quota during January, 2010 and secured 56.5 marks in Paper-V against the minimum pass mark of 60. He had secured minimum pass marks in respect of all other papers excluding Paper-V, for which the opposite party made a representation to the petitioner for allowing him 3 grace marks in terms of the DoT (Department of Telecommunications) Circular dated 20.06.1994 and rounding up the marks in Paper-V to 60. Since the said representation of the opposite party was rejected, he filed an Original Application being O.A. No.443 of 2010 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. 3.The Tribunal by its order dated 28.3.2011, while holding that the circular dated 20.6.1994 issued by the DoT has the application to the case of the opposite party, directed the BSNL to extend the benefit of grace marks to the opposite party in Paper-V by rounding up the same to 60 and take consequential action. The Tribunal also directed that since there may be similarly circumstanced candidates as that of the applicant-opposite party having failed in one of the papers in the examination in question, who might have not approached the Court of Law or Tribunal, the BSNL should extend the benefit of DoT Circular dated 20.6.1994 to all similarly situated persons as that of the present opposite party. 4.According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the Tribunal has gone wrong in holding that the DoT Circular dated 20.6.1994 has the application to the case of the opposite party. According to him, after the BSNL came into existence, the circular dated 20.6.1994 issued by DoT has lost its force. He emphatically submitted that when the circular dated 11.8.2006 (Annexure-4) came into force superseding the earlier circular dated 20.6.1994, the provision for grant of grace marks, as has been provided in 1994 circular has not been saved. According to him, after the BSNL came into existence, the circular dated 20.6.1994 issued by DoT has lost its force. He emphatically submitted that when the circular dated 11.8.2006 (Annexure-4) came into force superseding the earlier circular dated 20.6.1994, the provision for grant of grace marks, as has been provided in 1994 circular has not been saved. He drew our attention to the circular under Annexure-4, which is regarding holding Departmental Examination of Junior Accounts Officer (JAO) Part-II under old (DoT) syllabus in the month of March, 2006 and issues relating to grant of grace marks and preparation of Exemption List. In this regard, he placed reliance to paragraph-1 of the aforesaid circular dated 11.8.2006, which is quoted herein below :- “Although the above examination is of descriptive type, it is not a qualifying examination and hence extension of 3 grace marks in this examination is not appropriate.” That apart, it is stated that as the aggregate pass mark in this examination was lowered down to 45% as against the requirement of securing 50% marks in aggregate under the circular dated 20.6.1994, 3 grace marks cannot be awarded to anybody. 5.Though aforesaid was the main stand taken by the petitioner apart from various other grounds, but nothing has been stated in the circular dated 11.8.2006 (Annexure-4) nor was there any document placed before this Court to support the claim of the petitioner that the Circular dated 20.6.1994 issued by the DoT has been superseded and/or lost its force. There is also nothing to show that the said circular dated 20.6.1994 has no application to BSNL. 6.Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite party drew our attention drawn to Annexure-3, which shows that the examination conducted, i.e. JAO Part-I and Part-II main examination of the BSNL was for internal candidates under the modified old syllabus and regarding one time relaxation. It is not disputed that the examination held under the old syllabus is guided by the DoT circular dated 20.6.1994. 7.In view of the aforesaid facts and submissions and on perusal of the impugned order, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the circular issued by the DoT dated 20.6.1994 has the application to the present case. 7.In view of the aforesaid facts and submissions and on perusal of the impugned order, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal in coming to the conclusion that the circular issued by the DoT dated 20.6.1994 has the application to the present case. So, the order to that extent is confirmed and the direction to extend the benefit of grace mark rounding up the same to 60 marks is upheld and confirmed. But so far as the direction of the Tribunal that the order shall have applicability to all similarly circumstanced candidates having failed in one of the papers in question, who might not have approached the Court of law or Tribunal, we set aside the same. Let the direction of the Tribunal, as confirmed by the present order, be complied with within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. No cost. B.K. MISRA, J.I agree. Ordered accordingly.