- (1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 2.1.2013 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6079 of 2004 in and by which the learned Single Judge has declined to quash letter no. 483 dated 20.8.2004 issued by the Divisional Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division and further declined to issue direction to the respondents to consider the case of the appellant for granting benefit under the Assured Career Progression Scheme. The appellant was appointed as a Clerk on 6th September, 1968. The appellant had appeared for the departmental accounts examination held in the year 1994 and passed first paper but was unable to clear the second paper. Again the appellant appeared in the departmental examination second time in 1997 but could not clear the examination. In the year 1999 again the departmental Accounts examination was conducted but the appellant could not appear due to urgent official work. In the meanwhile, the appellant has completed 50 years of age on 1.8.1998. The appellant retired from service on 31.7.2008 and during the period of retirement, he was holding the post of Accounts Clerk.
(2.) THE Government vide Notification no. 4674 dated 15.5.1992 issued certain guidelines for giving exemption to those employees from appearing in the departmental examination, who have completed 50 years of age and that they will be given the benefit under Assured Career Progression scheme at par to the persons entitled. The appellant after attaining the age of 50 years had applied for granting exemption on the ground of above Notification no. 4674 dated 15.5.1992 issued by Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department. -However, respondent nos. 3 and 4 have rejected the prayer of the appellant and declined to grant exemption. The appellant then filed W.P. (S) No. 6079 of 2004 seeking to quash the letter no. 483 dated 20.8.2004 issued by 3rd respondent -Divisional Commissioner, Singhbhum (Kolhan) Division. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the appellant did not fulfill the requirement as laid down in the Notification at Annexure -1 dated 15th May, 1992 and the petitioner again tried to avail such exemption in the year 1999 even after completion of 50 years of age and thus in these facts and circumstances, action of the respondents cannot be found fault with and on those findings the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition.
(3.) CHALLENGING the impugned order, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Writ Court did not keep in view the fact that the appellant had completed 50 years of age on 1.8.1998 and since the appellant had earlier twice appeared in the department examination, his case is fit to be considered for exemption from appearing in the departmental examination. It was further contended that the case of the appellant was not considered by the learned Single Judge in the light of the guidelines issued for granting exemption from appearance in the departmental examination after completing 50 years of age. According to the petitioner -appellant, the case of similarly placed employee, namely, Shri Kishori Mohan Prasad was considered and the said Shri Kishori Mohan Prasad was granted exemption as per the said Notification no. 4674 dated 15.5.1992.;