IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6050 of 2010 1. BIRANCHI SINGH S/O LATE MATHURA SINGH R/O VILL.- PINJARI, P.S.- BARBIGHA, DISTT.- SHEIKHPURA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF FINANCE DEPARTMENT (PAY FIXATION) BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DIRECTOR (ADMINISTRATION) CUM JOINT SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 03. 29.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.11.2009 passed by the Director (Administration)-Cum- Joint Secretary, Human Resources Department, declining to grant him exemption from passing the departmental examination. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is his specific assertion in paragraph-9 of the writ application that he applied for such exemption on 15.12.2007, duly received by the respondents. The impugned order is arbitrary inasmuch as it rejects his application on the ground that he had allegedly applied on 22.1.2008, a few days prior to his superannuation on 31.1.2008. Learned counsel for the State relies upon paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit to submit that the petitioner had applied on 22.01.2008. It is contended that 2 grant of exemption from passing the departmental examination on completion of 50 years of age was not a matter of right, but the petitioner had only a right to be considered which has been done and rejected for valid reasons. The counter affidavit at paragraph-11 while dealing with the assertion of the petitioner in paragraph-9 of the writ petition that he had applied for exemption on 15.1.2007 does not deny the same. No other ground has been mentioned in the impugned order dated 10.11.2009, except that the petitioner had applied belatedly. On the principles of non-traverse, the respondents do not appear to be denying that the petitioner had sought such exemption as far back as 15.12.2007. The impugned order therefore gets vitiated on that ground alone as no other ground for rejection has been mentioned. The impugned order dated 10.11.2009 is set aside. The matter is remanded to respondent no.4 to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order on the only surviving issue on the matter after fresh consideration. The respondents shall have to bear in mind that the impugned order does not refer to any other infirmity. If any recovery has been made against the petitioner, needless to state that it shall have to abide by such fresh decision which is directed to be taken within 3 two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It shall be open for the petitioner to support his claims on basis of any present grievance with regard to hostile discrimination also. The writ application stands disposed. P.K ( Navin Sinha, J.)