IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.108 of 2011 1. NIRMALA DEVI , w/o Late Raj Ranjan Pratap, Resident of Mohalla – Mubarak Lane Daniyawan, P.S. Town Thana, Distt. Saran (Chapra), Bihar 2. Mahip Ranjan Pratap, S/o Late Raj Rajan Pratap, resident of mohalla - Mubarak Lane Daniyawan, P.S. Town Thana, Distt. Saran (Chapra), Bihar 3. Manjeet Kumar Pratap, S/o Late Raj Ranjan Pratap, resident of mohalla - Mubarak Lane Daniyawan, P.S. Town Thana, Distt. Saran (Chapra), Bihar 4. Manoj Kumar, S/o Late Raj Ranjan Pratap, resident of mohalla - Mubarak Lane Daniyawan, P.S. Town Thana, Distt. Saran (Chapra), Bihar 5. Manish Kumar Pratap, Son Late Raj Ranjan Pratap, resident of mohalla - Mubarak Lane Daniyawan, P.S. Town Thana, Distt. Saran (Chapra), Bihar 6. Madhup Kumar Pratap, S/o Late Raj Ranjan Pratap, resident of mohalla - Mubarak Lane Daniyawan, P.S. Town Thana, Distt. Saran (Chapra), Bihar …… Petitioners … Appellants Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat Building, Patna 2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariate Building, Patna 3. The Secretary, Deptt. Of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariate Building, Patna 4. The Secrertary, Central Examination Committee, Revenue Department, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariate Building, Patna 5. The Accountant General Bihar, Veer chand Patel Path, Patna ….. Respondents / Respondents ----------- 5 28.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. For claiming benefits of first time bound 2 promotion which would have been ordinarily available to the petitioner in 1983, the petitioner sought exemption from taking and passing the required departmental examination in 1995, two years before his superannuation in 1997. The policy to grant exemption adopted by the State, which is contained in Annexure 2 to the writ petition shows that privilege of exemption can be granted only to those who fulfill several conditions and qualifications. One of the conditions is that the service records of the concerned employees should be clean and he should not have been awarded any punishment. Admittedly petitioner was once punished with censure. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that in service jurisprudence as per rules the punishment of censure looses its adverse impact upon a right of the employee for the purposes of future benefits like promotion etc. The aforesaid submission may be true that an adverse order of punishment may not affect rights of an employee particularly the right to be considered for promotion after certain years but a claim for exemption from taking a departmental 3 examination is no right vested in any employee. Such a privilege flows from policy decision of the State Government such as one in Annexure 2. If such policy decision imposes conditions as condition precedent for grant of exemption an employee cannot be allowed the privilege of exemption bereft of such conditions. In the facts and circumstances of the case we find no good reasons to take a different view than what has been taken by the writ Court. Accordingly this appeal is dismissed. Spd/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)