IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.643 of 2001 RAM ASIS SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4. 27.08.2008 Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State as also the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Accountant General. The claim in this writ application is for grant of first and second time bound promotions. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 6.9.1976 which was revoked on 11.10.1979. He was again suspended on 10.3.1980 which was revoked on 21.3.1991.These were in the context of a vigilance case against him in which he came to be convicted. He retired on 31.3.1991 when ultimately he has been acquitted in the criminal appeal preferred by him by judgement dated 5.5.1995. Mr Mukhopadhyay relies on a Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 2000 (4) PLJR 262 to submit that his basis of eligibility for first and second time bound promotion as claimed from 1.4.1981 and 1.4.1985 clearly fell within the exception period noticed in the aforesaid judgement during which there was no requirement for passing of departmental examination and in pursuance of which the respondent State has issued instruction that those who are eligible for first time bound promotion for this period of exception are automatically entitled to the second time bound promotion. He assails the impugned order dated 27.3.1998 rejecting the claim for such consideration on the ground that no application for exemption from appearing at the departmental examination can be entertained after superannuation of the petitioner. What this Court finds is that the petitioner in his representation after retirement sought exemption from requirement of passing the departmental examination when his representation has been considered on the aforesaid basis. The writ petition however makes out entirely new grounds not raised before the respondents, to assail the impugned order. The respondents cannot be indicted on a ground not raised before them by setting aside the order on different ground raised by the petitioner. Even while this Court declines to interfere with the order dated 27.3.1998 which obviously becomes not relevant in view of the present controversy sought to be raised on behalf of the petitioner the writ application is disposed with liberty to the petitioner to raise the aforesaid issue before the respondents who are required to decide the same in accordance with law within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)