- (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant, Hafiz Razak who was the petitioner along with one Asloke Yadav in W.P(S) NO.4975/2007 which had been filed claiming the benefit of the Assured Career Progression (ACP in short) in view of the implementation of the scheme by virtue of a Court's decision rendered in the case of Jharkhand Police Force Vs. State of Jharkhand. The writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 31.07.2008. The appeal thereafter had been filed by only one of the petitioners i.e. the appellant, Hafiz Razak assailing the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge referred to hereinbefore which is time barred by 234 days which is approximately seven months. However, an application for condonation of delay also has been filed along with the appeal but there is hardly any ground in the application to condone the same as no valid or convincing reason has been assigned in the application. In spite of this huge delay we permitted the counsel for the appellant to address us on the merit of the appeal and on appreciation of the same and after hearing the counsel for the appellant in the light of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, we have been able to gather that the appellant has no case even on merit. The plea taken by the appellant was to the effect that he was entitled to A.C.P benefit as he had already completed 12 years of service which is more than ten years and admittedly is the minimum requirement for granting the benefit of A.C. P. scheme. Counsel for the respondent -State submitted that the appellant was not entitled to the benefit of A.C.P. as there was requirement of two months departmental training and the appellant for his category also was required to produce the matriculation certificate. But the appellant could not be sent for training at the relevant time as he had not produced his matriculation certificate and was rightly not granted the benefit of A.C.P. Learned counsel for the appellant however, sought to counter the submission of the counsel for the respondent -State and submitted that the appellant was entitled to be sent for training at the relevant time in the category of A.S.I. as the appellant was already a matriculate but in the wake of the fact that the appellant had failed to establish his case that he was a matriculate at the relevant time, this plea that he was wrongly not sent for training has no legal force to sustain his stand. Since the appellant had failed to fulfill the criterion for sending him to departmental training as he was not a matriculate at the relevant time, his plea that he was wrongly denied the A.C.P. benefit in spite of having completed the minimum number of years in service for claiming the ACP benefit, obviously could not have been sustained. Thus the appeal preferred by the appellant has no substance on merit apart from the fact that the delay of seven months in filing the appeal has also not been explained. However, we noticed that the appellant had been denied the benefit of ACP only on the ground that at the relevant time he had not produced the matriculation certificate due to which he was not sent for departmental training. But, subsequently, if the appellant had produced the matriculate certificate, he surely would be entitled to be sent for departmental training and after completion of the departmental training, the benefit for ACP scheme obviously will accrue in his favour, hence, mere dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge would not be allowed to come in his way. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal is dismissed.;