Sri Brij Kishore Singh vs The State of Jharkhand

Alok Singh

Petitioner is claiming benefit of Assured Career Progression (ACP). Mr. V.P. Singh, learned senior counsel has vehemently argued that in view of circular dated 15.05.1992, exemption to appear in the departmental examination should have been granted to the petitioner.

On the other hand, Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the State, while referring to circular dated 15.05.1992, has vehemently argued that order of exemption from the departmental examination should be specific and there is no automatic exemption. He has further stared that petitioner has not shown that he has ever appeared in the departmental examination and remained unsuccessful or there was no departmental examination within five years prior to the date petitioner has attained the age of 50 years, therefore, petitioner is not entitled for any exemption on completion of 50 years of age.

Perusal of Annexure- 5 would reveal that petitioner was denied the benefit of A.C.P. on the ground of awaiting the result of second paper of the departmental examination.

In view of the noting mentioned in Annexure- 5 that result of the-second paper of the departmental examination is awaited, it cannot be said that petitioner never appeared in the departmental examination.

Despite specific direction issued by this Court vide order dated 14.03.2012, no affidavit has been filed.

Order dated 14.03.2012 is reproduced here as under:

Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby direct the respondents to point out to this Court following aspects:

(a) Whether the respondents have taken departmental examination year wise for the period running from 1994 till 2002 ? and

(b) Whether the petitioner has cleared any departmental examination because looking to Annexure-5 to the memo of the petition, it appears that the petitioner has cleared some papers of the departmental examination, therefore, this Court wants to know whether the petitioner has cleared any papers of the departmental examination and in which year, the petitioner has cleared departmental examination.

These facts will be stated, on oath, by the respondents on or before the next date of hearing.

The matter is, therefore, adjourned to be listed on 16th April, 2012.

It is not disputed that no decision has been taken by the respondent on the representation of the petitioner dated 26.09.2005.

In the present case, disputed question of facts are involved to the effect that as to whether petitioner has repeatedly appeared in the departmental examination and could not pass the examination or as to whether departmental examination was held within five years prior to attaining the age of 50 years by the petitioner. Therefore, for all fairness, it would be desirable to direct the respondents to take decision on the representation of the petitioner dated 26.09.2005. While taking decision, Respondent No. 2 shall record specific findings of fact to the effect that as to whether petitioner had ever appeared in the departmental examination, if yes, how many times and what was the result. Respondent No. 2 shall also record as to whether any departmental examination was held within five years prior to attaining the age of 50 years of the petitioner. He shall also pass order to the effect that as to whether the petitioner is entitled for exemption from the departmental examination. The entire exercise shall be completed within 90 days from today.