IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3733 of 2011 Ganesh Jha SON OF LATE MAHARAJ JHA RESIDENT OF KARANPUR, DISTRICT SUPAUL AT PRESENT RESIDING IN LALITA BHAWAN, SARAHI ROAD, NAY BAZAR, SAHARSA. Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 2 12/07/2011 When the petitioner moved the High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3324 of 2010 then, merely because the learned Single Judge observed that the grant of promotion under A.C.P. scheme is not by way of substantive promotion and the case of the petitioner ought to be considered by passing a reasoned speaking order, it does not mean that a declaration in favour of the petitioner was made with regard to entitlement. Case of the petitioner has been considered by the respondent State authorities, in this case the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Development Department, Bihar, at Birpur, district Supaul, and a reasoned order contained in annexure-4 has been given stating the ground why the petitioner cannot be given the benefit. If the service record of the petitioner indicates and have reflections as to how he conducted in service which led to visitation of certain punishment, then those - 2 - punishment will surely come in the way of the petitioner so long they exist, in getting the benefit under the A.C.P scheme. In this case there were five occasions when the petitioner has been given punishment of censor and that is why he has not been granted benefit under the A.C. P. scheme. This Court is of the view that the petitioner, as a matter of right, cannot claim that he is entitled to the A.C.P. because of the length of service he has had because even for grant of A.C.P. an employee must fulfill all the requirements of a substantive promotion. It is not only the length but quality of service which also matters. In this case the reasoning given, therefore, cannot be said to be extraneous to the policy laid down for grant of such benefit. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)