1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.1416 of 2008 (Shri Ashok Prabhakarrao Joshi and another v. Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division and others) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CORAM : D.D. Sinha and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ. DATE : 9th September, 2008 Heard Shri S.R. Narnaware, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Smt. B.H. Dangre, Additional Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 4. The writ petition is directed against the order dated 18-2-2008 passed by respondent No.1 – Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, whereby the appeal filed by the appellants came to be allowed. Petitioner No.1 was the respondent in the said appeal. The question, which falls for our consideration, is what is the criteria for promotion from the post of Junior Clerk to the post of Senior Clerk. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the Junior Clerk, who completes the age of 45 years, is not required to pass the departmental examination, for promotion to the post of Senior Clerk. It is contended that in the instant case, petitioner No.1 has completed the age of 45 years on 6-12-1995 and, therefore, on 1-4-2004, petitioner No.1 was 2 eligible to be considered for promotional post of Senior Clerk. It is further contended that this criteria was neither adopted nor considered by respondent No.1 and, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. The learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that so far as the Maharashtra Accounts Clerk Examination Rules, 1964 is concerned, if the Junior Clerk attains the age of 40 years, in such situation it is not necessary for such Junior Clerk to appear for the Departmental Examination for the purpose of seeking promotion to the post of Senior Clerk. It is contended that in the instant case, since petitioner No.1 attained the age of 40 years, his claim ought to have been considered for the post of Senior Clerk. However, even this criteria was not considered by respondent No.1, and, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. The learned Additional Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 4 has supported the impugned order and contended that so far as the Government Circular dated 21-9-1990 is concerned, the Junior Clerks, those who have completed the age of 45 years on or before 22-12-1988, were exempted from passing the departmental examination. In the instant case, the petitioner attained the age of 45 years on 6-12-1995 and, therefore, was not eligible for exemption. The learned Additional Government Pleader further contended that so far as the Maharashtra Accounts Clerk Examination Rules, 1964 is concerned, in the instant case the petitioner was appointed way back in the year 1982 and he neither passed the departmental examination within the stipulated period nor attained the age of 40 years during that period and, therefore, is not entitled to get exemption as contemplated in clause 13 of the said Rules. Considered the contentions canvassed by the rival parties and 3 perused the impugned order as well as the relevant clauses of the aforesaid Government Circular. In the backdrop of the above-referred facts, it is evident that the petitioner did not pass departmental examination prior to 22-12-1988, nor did he attain the age of 45 years on that date. Hence, the petitioner is not eligible to get the exemption as provided in Government Circular dated 21-9-1990. Further the petitioner was appointed in the year 1982 and failed to pass the departmental examination within three years in four attempts and did not attain the age of 40 years during the said period. Hence, the petitioner is also not entitled to get advantage of clause 13 of the said Rules. Consequently, the petition suffers from lack of merits and the same is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Lanjewar