IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9681 of 2005 MD.MANJAR HASAN, Son of Md. Manjoor Hasan, Resident of village Shekhpura, P.S. and Diostrict Sheikhpura, presently working as correspondence clerk at P.W.D. Road Division, Jamui. Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2.The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4.Additional Secretary Water Resources Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5.Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Road Division, Jamui. ----------- 2 8/12/2009 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “(i)Petitioner prays for the direction for reevaluation of his I and II papers of the departmental accounts examination 2000 in which petitioner has not been declared finally pass as published by letter bearing no. PARI koshang 01/05 1309/26.5.05 where as petitioner replied all the questions very well in both the papers, and he has very strong chance of his success. (ii)Petitioner further prays for commanding and directing the respondents to ensure the in toto compliance of the government’s decision pertaining to the departmental accounts examination as contazined in the letter bearing no.3/PAR-04-2/89/4178 dt.12.8.92. (iii)Petitioner further prays for awarding heavy cost upon the respondents for their lackadaisical attitude in compliance of the said government decision, whereby and whereunder accounts examination has to 2 be held twice in an year, whereas it has been held only once in last five years.” Counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no fixed norms by which the Water Resources Department, a nodal department of the Works Department, is following the practice either in conducting the examination or evaluating the answer sheets. Counsel in this regard would submit that the examination in question was held in the year 2002 after a gap of five years and thereafter again no examination again has been conducted till date. Counsel would also submit that the whole purpose of the government decision with regard to holding of the departmental examination twice in a year vide Government circular dated 12.8.1992 (Annexure 3/A) has become redundant on account of failure of the respondents in holding the departmental examination on a regular basis twice in a year. Counsel for the State as usual has not filed any counter affidavit and is also not aware of the reasons for not holding the said departmental examination on a regular basis. This Court would however find that the first prayer of the petitioner with regard to review of result of the examination already conducted in the year 2002 is not possible, inasmuch as, there is no provision for 3 reevaluation of answersheet. Added to it the delay of more than three years in filing of such writ petition is itself fatal for entertaining such prayer. Infact the petitioner has also failed to make out any prima-facie case for reevaluation of his answer book which cannot be allowed in a routine manner. Consequently, the first prayer of the petitioner must be and is hereby rejected. Coming to the second prayer as with regard to holding of the departmental examination on regular basis, this Court must hold that the respondents are duty bound to hold such examination on a regular basis. It is infact shocking to note that the petitioner or any other person, who have been declared to have failed in two or three papers of such departmental examination are coerced to move this Court even for holding the next examination. The Respondents must keep in their mind that the promotion of government servants is dependent on their passing of the departmental examination and if the respondents do not hold such departmental examination, it is petitioner and the persons like him who would suffer irreparable loss in terms of both higher salary and status. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the Principal Secretary of the Water Resources Department to look into the matter and ensure that, at least one, if not two, departmental examination in a year is 4 conducted by the Water Resources Department on a regular basis for the persons in the category of the petitioner so that their promotions are not unnecessarily withheld only on account of there being no prospect of holding of such departmental examination. In order to expedite the matter, this Court would give liberty the petitioner to file a fresh representation along with a copy of this order before the Principal Secretary, Water Resources Department, who must take his decision within a period of three months from the date of filing of such representation by the petitioner. It goes without saying that if the petitioner clears the departmental examination, he would be entitled for his promotion as per government rules. With the aforementioned observation/direction this application is disposed of. Abhay Kumar (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)