IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.8517 of 1997 =================================================== Daya Shankar Jha, son of late Chandra Kishore Jha, resident of Village Kharka, P.S. Nanpur, District Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. Chief Accounts Controller, Finance (Audit) Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. Deputy Accounts Controller, Patna Division, Patna. .... .... Respondents =================================================== 4 12-07-2011 Heard Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. Apparently, in presence of the statutory rules contained in the notification of the Finance (Audit) Department of the Government of Bihar dated 19 th March, 1966, this Court would not find any merit in the submission of Mr. Jha that a Senior Auditor was not required to pass departmental examination by the Higher Standard for earning his promotion. The Rules are so clear on this aspect that it would brook no two interpretations that an Auditor including Senior Auditor could not have been confirmed much less promoted unless they would pass the departmental examination. It is in this context that one has to also understand the applicability of Rule 5 of Rules for the departmental examination of Auditors, Finance Department, which reads as follows:- “5. Liability to pass Departmental Examination- (i) An Auditor on probation shall 2 if he has passed the Departmental Examination by the Lower Standard completely, be eligible for confirmation if he has rendered two years of service and if he is otherwise suitable in all respect for confirmation. (ii) A Senior Auditor, Grade II, who is on probation or may hereafter be appointed on probation, shall be eligible for confirmation in his grade at the end of his period of probation if he has passed the Departmental Examination completely by the Higher Standard and is found otherwise suitable in all respects for confirmation. (iii) A Senior Auditor, who has not been confirmed in Grade-I shall be required to pass the Departmental Examination completely by the Higher Standard before he is eligible for confirmation in that grade. (iv) An Auditor may not be eligible for promotion to the next higher grade of Senior Auditor, Grade II, until he has passed the Departmental Examination completely by the Higher Standard and has been confirmed in the Grade of Auditor and his work and conduct have been satisfactory. Also a Senior Auditor Grade II may not be eligible for promotion as Senior Auditor Grade I, unless he has passed the Departmental Examination completely by Higher Standard and has been confirmed in the Grade of Senior Auditor Grade II and his work and conduct have been satisfactory.” The aforementioned Rule 5, if read in the context of the explanation under (term examination) Rule 2, would make it abundantly clear that only one set of departmental examination was to be held for all categories of Auditors including Senior Auditor 3 (Grade-I & II) and the consequence of not passing the examination was also clearly mentioned in Rule-7 in the following terms:- “7. Disqualification caused by failure to pass the Departmental Examination.- An Auditor shall be required to pass the Departmental Examination in a total number of four consecutive chances. Failure to pass the Examination in the four chance shall render an Auditor- (a) if promoted, liable to be reverted to his substantive appointment, at the discretion of the appointing authority, and (b) if appointed direct, liable to termination of service at the discretion of the appointing authority.” Considering the nature of the aforesaid rules, this Court would find it difficult to accept the submission of Mr. Jha that a Senior Auditor could have earned his promotion only by passing in the Lower Standard. There is no dispute that the petitioner has ultimately passed the departmental examination in the Higher Standard and has been confirmed by an order dated 20.9.1995 as also has been given his first time bound promotion with effect from 10.2.1994. In that view of the matter, there would be no question now to allow the petitioner to revert back to an earlier date of 10.2.1991 either for the purpose of being confirmed in service or for earning 4 his time bound promotion specially when it is an admitted fact that as on 10.2.1991, he had not passed the departmental examination in the Higher Standard. Considering the matter from the aforesaid angle, this Court would find no error in the impugned order rejecting such claim of the petitioner. This application is, accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)