Passing the departmental accounts examination is not a prerequisite for time-bound promotion or ACP.

The petitioner was appointed as a Jail Warder on 31 December 1963 and was promoted as a Clerk with effect from 8 June 1972.

After completing ten years of service as a Clerk, he was granted the first Time-Bound Promotion with effect from 8 June 1982.

He claimed entitlement to the second Time-Bound Promotion/Assured Career Progression (ACP) upon completion of the requisite qualifying service with effect from 8 June 1996, but the benefit was not granted before his superannuation on 31 July 2002.

After retirement, the petitioner submitted several representations.

The Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Buxar, repeatedly recommended grant of the second Time-Bound Promotion through communications dated 25 September 2003, 30 July 2005 and 9 September 2005.

The Departmental Screening Committee ultimately rejected his claim on 31 July 2015 on the ground that he had not passed the mandatory departmental accounts examination, relying upon the Government Letter dated 10 March 1980.

The petitioner challenged that decision under Article 226 of the Constitution and relied upon Upendra Sah v. State of Bihar, which held that passing the departmental accounts examination was not a prerequisite for Time-Bound Promotion.

Whether the petitioner could be denied the second Time-Bound Promotion/ACP solely because he had not passed the departmental accounts examination, despite completing the requisite qualifying service?

Whether the Departmental Screening Committee’s decision dated 31 July 2015, rejecting the petitioner’s claim on that ground, was legally sustainable?

The Court applied the conditions governing Time-Bound Promotion under Departmental Circular No. 10770 dated 30 December 1981, holding that the scheme did not prescribe passing the departmental accounts examination as a condition precedent where the employee was otherwise fit and had completed the requisite qualifying service.

It relied on Bishwa Nath Prasad v. State of Bihar, 2011 (2) PLJR 136, which held that Time-Bound Promotion is governed by the conditions contained in the relevant circular and cannot be denied on the basis of an additional, unsupported examination requirement.

The Court further followed Upendra Sah v. State of Bihar, CWJC No. 13144 of 2008, decided on 26 July 2016, which held that no departmental accounts examination was required for grant of Time-Bound Promotion if the employee fulfilled the applicable conditions and was otherwise fit for promotion.

The contrary view in State v. Kusheshwar Nath Pandey, 2013 (1) PLJR 939, was treated as no longer governing after the relevant Supreme Court proceedings.

The Court found that the petitioner had completed the prescribed period of service, had been granted the first Time-Bound Promotion, and had no allegation of misconduct, adverse service record or other disqualification.

The repeated favourable recommendations by the Jail Superintendent further demonstrated that his claim had been administratively considered as otherwise meritorious.

Applying Upendra Sah and Bishwa Nath Prasad, the Court held that the respondents could not introduce passing the departmental accounts examination as an additional eligibility condition when the governing Time-Bound Promotion scheme did not impose such a requirement.

The rejection, made thirteen years after the petitioner’s retirement and solely on the basis of non-passing of the examination, was therefore inconsistent with the applicable legal principles and amounted to non-consideration of a retiral entitlement that had accrued during service.

It set aside the Departmental Screening Committee’s decision dated 31 July 2015 insofar as it rejected the petitioner’s claim.

The respondents were directed to restore the petitioner’s second Time-Bound Promotion with all consequential benefits, including refund of any amount recovered, within three months.

The writ petition was accordingly allowed, with no order as to costs.