IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13570 of 2003 ASHA KUMARI @ ASHA DEVI, wife of Late Umesh Singh resident of village- Takatpur, PO Neura, PS Bihta, District- Patna, at present posted as A.N.M. Primary Health Centre, Punpun, Patna. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Director, Health Bihar, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Health Services, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Regional Deputy Director, Health Services, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Director, Bal Vikash Pariyojana, Urban Area, Bihar, Patna. 6. The Project Officer, Samekit Bal Vikash Pariyojana, Urban Division, Patna District- Patna. 7. The Chief Medical Officer-cum-Civil Surgion, Patna, District- Patna. 8. The Incharge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Punpun, District- Patna. …Respondents. ----------- 3. 25.10.2010 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as with regard to the following relief; “(i) For direction to the respondent authorities to produce the letter (not known to the petitioner) in the Court, whereby the increment granted to the petitioner has been taken back and has directed to pay their original pay scale and further pray for quashing of the same. (ii) For direction to the respondent authorities to pay the petitioner’s salary as per the increment granted in view of the letter dated 8.5.1987 letter No. 592 which was granted in the year 1988. (iii) For holding that the petitioner not required to pass Hindi Noting Drafting Examination. (iv) For further holding that the respondent Authorities are not entitled to recover the increment paid to the petitioner in spite of passing the Hindi Noting Drafting 2 Examination with effect from the year 1987.” this Court is of the considered opinion that once the petitioner has herself appeared in the departmental examination for passing the departmental Hindi and Noting Drafting Examination, she cannot be allowed to both approbate and reprobate as with regard to non- applicability of such examination for the post of ANMs. The reliance placed by the petitioner on letter dated 20.9.1970 of Assistant Director Health is also misconceived and that also at best have the effect of absolving a person till it was not clarified by the State Government by its letter dated 6.6.2003 as contained in Annexure-B of the counter affidavit. As a matter of fact there would be a big question mark as with regard to validity of such circular of Health Department inasmuch as any order of exemption in view of statutory Rules 1968 as contained in Annexure-A could have been issued only by concerned department with the prior approval of Rajya Bhasha Department. The clarificatory letter of the Assistant Director, Health Department dated 20.9.1970 as referred in Annexure-1 is definitely not an order issued 3 with approval of Raj Bhasha department which alone under Bihar Sarkari Sewak (Hindi Pariksha) Niyamavali 1968 framed under proviso to Article 309 had been vested power to issue order for exemption of any catagorie of the employees from appearing in departmental Hindi Examination. That apart the question of recovery of the amount of increment already paid to the petitioner in this case is also not involved rather after a clarification in view of the order of State Government dated 6.6.2003 was issued by the Director in Chief of Heath Services with regard to mandatory requirement of passing of Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination even by ANMs, the petitioner with others were afforded opportunity to appear in such examination and once the had appeared and failed in such examination sanction of her future increments have been stopped. Such action of the respondents cannot be challenged by the petitioner because it is for the State Government to decide as to which post would require the expertise of having knowledge in Hindi and Noting Drafting which has to be adjudged through a departmental examination prescribed by the aforesaid 1968 Rules. 4 Thus if the post of ANMs was also now held to be covered by the requirement of passing Hindi noting and drafting examination, the petitioner cannot be allowed to take a contrary plea specially when she has herself appeared in such examination after the said clarification was issued by the State Government on 6.6.2003. The respondents in their counter affidavit have also made it absolutely clear that when nine out of 13 ANMs had already passed the departmental examination in which the petitioner with others had failed, their withheld increments were released and only the increments of the petitioner and others had been withheld till they would be declared to have passed departmental Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. In that view of the matter, this Court would not find any error in the decision of the respondents in not allowing the petitioner to draw her future increment till she would pass her required departmental Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. That being so, this writ application, is devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. kanchan/- ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)