IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8527 of 2009 Jagdish Pathak . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 3. 18.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is stated to have superannuated on 31.1.2005 from the post of Clerk. He desires to be considered for grant of first time bound promotion from 1991 and further for grant of A.C.P. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the initial appointment was on 22.1.1967 as an extra Clerk. No sooner that he was appointed as a temporary clerk on 7.2.1981 and subsequently confirmed on 1.6.1997, it amounts to a promotion to the post of Clerk and therefore all issues of passing any departmental examination etc. for purposes of time bound promotion become irrelevant. Therefore the petitioner is not only entitled to the first time bound promotion but also A.C.P. The respondents have reckoned his service from 22.1.1967 for purposes of pension. They cannot treat the same period of service differently for two different purposes. The petitioner had been granted exemption from passing the departmental 2 examination by order dated 22.2.2002. Counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner was appointed as an extra clerk whereafter he came to be appointed as a temporary clerk subsequently. That the date of initial appointment may have been reckoned for pensionable service cannot affect the guidelines laid down for computation of time bound promotion on a post. An extra clerk holds no post. He next submits that the petitioner never passed the departmental examination and the order dated 22.2.2002 is not an order exempting him from passing the departmental examination. The petitioner has asserted in Paragraph-8 of the writ application that others similarly situated and who had not passed the departmental examination have been granted the benefit of time bound promotion. Certain names have been mentioned also. The office order dated 19.6.2008 mentioned therein has been brought on record by way of a supplementary affidavit. Dealing with the assertions in Paragraph-8 of the writ application, the respondents in their counter affidavit at Paragraph-17 have made a very evasive reply and there is no specific denial to the 3 allegation of discrimination. It only states that he has not been exempted from passing the departmental accounts examination. The order impugned dated 30.4.2009 states that the petitioner was not entitled to the benefits as he not cleared both the papers of the departmental examination. It is the contention of the petitioner that he had passed the first paper and was granted exemption in the second paper but for which there is no documentary evidence on record. The petitioner has made a specific allegation of hostile discrimination and that orders have been passed for grant of time bound promotion/A.C.P. to others similarly situated as recent as 19.6.2008. In absence of specific assertion of facts with documentary evidence in the writ petition, a cogent denial by the respondents in the counter affidavit especially with regard to allegation of hostile discrimination, the Court does not find it possible to adjudicate the matter. The order dated 19.6.2008 appears to be relating to A.C.P. benefits introduced in the year 2003 and not to time bound promotions. No material has been placed before the Court that if the 4 petitioner considered himself eligible for first time bound promotion on 7.2.1991, what steps were taken by him while in service to pursue this remedy except for filing a writ application years later and four years after his superannuation in the year 2009. Relying on (2010) 8 SCC 701, where a delay of eight years in preferring a claim for time bound promotion was held sufficient to deny relief, the Court holds that it is not persuaded to entertain his claim for first time bound promotion. To that extent the writ application is dismissed. Let the respondents consider the allegations of hostile discrimination with regard to grant of A.C.P. to others similarly situated without passing a departmental examination and/or grant of exemption to them or to the petitioner as the case may be. Suffice it to notice had those who did not sit at the departmental examination and those who appeared and failed stand at par in one category as persons who have not cleared the departmental examination. Thereafter the issue of exemption, whether it is to be granted or not shall apply uniformly to both and there can be no artificial distinction between those who did not appear at the examination or those who appeared and failed. 5 Let such representation of the petitioner limited to the issue of hostile discrimination for grant of A.C.P. only be considered and disposed off by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)