IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12316 of 2009 RAM KEBAL SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE + POST KEYAL, P.S. KARPI IN THE DISTRICT OF ARWAL----PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE DIRECTOR, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE COMMISSIONER, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA. 4. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, PATNA EARLIER RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, PATNA. 5. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, RURAL DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL CIRCLE NO.II, PATNA UNDER RURAL WORKS DEPARTMENT, PATNA. 6. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL WORKS DIVISION-II, MASAURHI CAMP AT PATNA, RURAL WORKS DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 7. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RURAL DEVELOOPMENT DIVISION-I, PATNA, RURAL DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA----RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02. 15.09.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division contained in letter No. 1741 dated 13.12.2006, Annexure-3 and order bearing Memo No.127 dated 4.3.2009 Annexure-6, whereunder request of the petitioner for grant of exemption from appearing in the departmental accounts examination has been rejected, observing that he did not make sincere effort to pass the said examination. In this connection, it is pointed out that petitioner appeared in the departmental accounts examination for the first time in the year, 1999 and again in the years 2002 and 2007 but failed in all the three attempts and prior thereto he could not appear in the said examination as he was over burdened with the official work, which fact would appear from recommendation made 2 by the Executive Engineer, Rural Development, Special Division No.1, Patna dated 24.9.2005, Annexure-2. It is thus, submitted that the petitioner did make all sincere effort, which was within his competence to succeed in the departmental examination and the view taken by the learned Divisional Commissioner that petitioner did not make sincere effort to pass the examination appears to be incorrect. 3. I see substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner having appeared in the examination thrice did make sincere effort to pass the examination but as ill luck would have it he failed in all the attempts. Accordingly, the two orders dated 13.12.2006 and 4.3.2009, Annexures-3 and 6 are quashed with direction to the Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division to re-consider the matter taking a liberal and sympathetical view in the matter and allow exemption as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 4. This writ application is, accordingly, disposed of. Rajesh/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)