Passing Departmental Accounts Examination Is Not Mandatory for Granting ACP/MACP Financial Progression Benefits.

The petitioner, a resident of Saharsa, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 21.07.2022 issued by the Inspector General of Police (Headquarters), Bihar

This order rejected the petitioner’s claim for financial progression under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) and Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) schemes

The claim was denied solely on the ground that the petitioner had failed to pass the departmental examination required for such benefits

The petitioner sought the quashing of the rejection and a direction for the grant of benefits from the date of entitlement

1. Whether the passing of a departmental examination is a mandatory prerequisite for the grant of benefits under the ACP/MACP schemes

2. Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s claim based on an order passed in 2022 is sustainable in light of the subsequent Full Bench clarification in 2024

The Court relied on the Full Bench decision in Kamlanand Thakur v. The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 18727 of 2017), reported in 2024 (4) BLJ 806

The core legal principle established is that Rule 157(3)(J) of the Bihar Board’s Miscellaneous Rules, 1958—which requires passing Departmental Accounts Examinations—applies only to confirmation, crossing efficiency bars, and selection grade promotions, but does not apply to the grant of ACP/MACP benefits

Furthermore, Rule 4(5) of the ACP Rules, 2003, does not bar financial progression for lack of exam qualification because such progression is considered "in situ" promotion and not a regular functional promotion

The Court noted that the primary reason for rejecting the petitioner's claim was the non-passing of the departmental examination

However, applying the Kamlanand Thakur precedent, the Court reasoned that the requirement for such examinations is not applicable to the ACP/MACP schemes, as these are financial progressions rather than regular promotions

Although the State argued that the rejection occurred in 2022—prior to the 2024 Full Bench judgment—the Court implicitly determined that the legal clarification provided by the Full Bench must be applied to the pending dispute to ensure justice

Consequently, the previous rejection order was found to be legally untenable

The Court held that the petitioner is entitled to have his claim reconsidered in light of the Full Bench decision.

The petitioner was directed to file a fresh representation before the Director General of Police (Respondent No. 2) within 30 days, and Respondent No. 2 was directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order within 90 days thereafter, specifically considering the Kamlanand Thakur judgment