IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9761 of 2002 DR. GIRIDHAR PRASAD SINGH son of Late Shivraksha Prasad Singh, resident of Jagdamba Bhawan, Ist Floor, G-4, P.C. Colony, Police Station, Kankarbagh, District- Patna. …. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Commissioner-cum- Secretary, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Additional Commissioner-cum-Special Secretary, Department of Health Medical Education and Family Welfare, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director in Chief, Health Services, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. …. Respondents. ----------- 3. 23.06.2010 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State is present. The prayer of the petitioner made in this writ petition reads as follows:- “(i) Quashing the order dt. 27.3.2002 passed by Commissioner and Secretary, Health, respondent no. 1 rejecting the representation of the petitioner for exemption from appearing in departmental examination, contained in Annexure-3 to this writ petition. (ii) and be pleased to hold that petitioner is entitled to exemption since attainment of age of 50 years or at least from the date of application. (iii) and thereafter grant such consequential benefits of service of increments, arrears and refixation of pension.” From the reading of the writ petition, it appears that after the petitioner had retired from service, 2 he had filed the present writ petition claiming exemption from appearance in the departmental examination. Such prayer being absolutely academic for the purpose of the petitioner inasmuch as a retired employee cannot get promotion out of such exemption, this Court is not at all inclined to consider the grant of such prayer to the petitioner. That apart, from the counter affidavit filed by respondents, it is also clear that the petitioner did not fulfil the criteria for grant of exemption from appearing in the departmental examination. This aspect of the matter has been explained in the counter affidavit and reasons therein do not seem to be incorrect. Moreover, the plea of petitioner that he could not produce the documents to satisfy the authorities with regard to grant of exemption on account of his documents being destroyed in the flood seems to be only an excuse inasmuch as the petitioner was continuing in service till 1997, his exemption was due in the year 1987 and the flood in Patna had come only in the year 1976. It is clear that the petitioner is only trying to whip a dead horse. That being so, this writ petition is wholly 3 misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)