Case Background
The case arose from a dispute between a seasonal clerk of the Water Resources Department and the State of Bihar about his entitlement to financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme.
The employee, working as a seasonal clerk, claimed ACP benefits after long years of service. By letter dated 22.02.2011, the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Kaimur, Bhabhua, refused him ACP on the ground that he had not passed the departmental accounts examination.
He challenged this denial before the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19307 of 2013. He also complained that his work as a seasonal employee had been wrongly counted by the department: he claimed 1719 days of work, but the department accepted only 431 days, citing non-availability of records.
On 20.12.2017, a learned Single Judge allowed his writ petition in part. The Court held that, since there was no promotional post from the position of seasonal clerk, the petitioner could not be forced to clear a departmental examination as a condition for ACP. The Single Judge directed that his case be considered for ACP and also gave him liberty to file a representation regarding the disputed number of working days.
The State of Bihar and departmental authorities, aggrieved by that judgment, filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 372 of 2019 before a Division Bench of the Patna High Court.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah heard the appeal. The judgment was delivered on 25.04.2022.
The State appellants raised only one issue before the Bench: they argued that the writ petitioner’s case for ACP could not have been ordered to be considered because he had not passed the departmental accounts examination. In essence, the State tried to treat such examination as a mandatory precondition for financial progression.
To decide this, the Division Bench first revisited the reasoning of the learned Single Judge. The Single Judge had carefully examined the ACP Rules and the nature of the petitioner’s post.
The petitioner had been appointed as a seasonal clerk. The State did not deny that there was no promotional post available from this position. In simple terms, there was no “next higher post” to which a seasonal clerk could be promoted under the existing service structure.
The Single Judge noted that the ACP Rules were introduced to deal with stagnation in service due to lack of vacancies or non-availability of promotional avenues. Under these Rules, an employee is to be given financial upgradation if he is otherwise eligible for regular promotion and if he meets the conditions, including passing a departmental examination, where such condition exists for promotion.
However, the Court emphasised that this requirement works only where a promotional post and promotional rules actually exist. If there is no promotional post at all, then no promotional rules and no eligibility criteria can logically be prescribed for such non-existent promotion.
In the petitioner’s case, since no promotional post from the post of seasonal clerk was available, there could be no rule insisting on passing any departmental examination for that non-existent promotion. As a result, the Court held that the petitioner was not required to pass any departmental examination for consideration of his case for ACP.
The Single Judge supported this reasoning by relying on earlier Division Bench decisions. In particular, the Court referred to the judgment in Uday Shankar Prasad vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2017 (3) PLJR 824, where it was held that if a post has no promotional avenue, there cannot be any requirement to pass a departmental examination for ACP.
The State had argued that this view conflicted with a previous Division Bench decision in Gorakh Nath Choudhary vs. The State of Bihar and others (CWJC No. 11713 of 2010, dated 27.09.2012), and therefore Uday Shankar Prasad should be treated as per incuriam. In Gorakh Nath Choudhary, the Court had held that all eligibility criteria for regular promotion, including passing the departmental examination, would apply to ACP.
The Single Judge distinguished that case on facts. In Gorakh Nath Choudhary, the employee was a Lower Division Clerk, a post with clear promotional avenues. Therefore, it made sense there to insist on all promotion conditions, including departmental examinations, before granting ACP.
By contrast, in the case of the seasonal clerk and in Uday Shankar Prasad, there were no promotional posts available. In such a factual background, the Court clarified that where no promotional avenue exists, there can be no promotional rules prescribing any eligibility criteria. Consequently, passing of a departmental examination cannot be treated as a condition precedent for ACP.
On the dispute about counting 1719 days of work as a seasonal employee, the Single Judge did not give a final finding. Instead, the Court allowed the petitioner to submit a detailed representation with all supporting documents to the senior officers (respondents 3, 4 and 5) within four weeks. The authorities were directed to verify his claim with official records, and, if found correct, to grant the due benefit within two months thereafter.
When the appeal came before the Division Bench, the judges examined whether the Single Judge’s conclusion about the irrelevance of the departmental accounts examination for ACP in such cases was correct.
The Division Bench observed that the issue was no longer open to fresh debate. The matter had already been conclusively settled by earlier Division Bench decisions, particularly State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Smt. Jivachi Devi, reported in 2020 (2) BLJ 471.
In Jivachi Devi, the Court had considered in detail whether passing the departmental accounts examination is necessary for grant of ACP benefits under the Bihar State Employees Conditions of Service (Assured Career Progression Scheme) Rules, 2003 read with Clause (J) of sub-rule (3) of Rule 157 of the Bihar Boards Miscellaneous Rules, 1958.
In that case, the Court referred to several earlier Division Bench judgments, including:
- Bishwanath Prasad v. The State of Bihar, (2011) 2 PLJR 136
- Avinash Chandra Singh v. The State of Bihar, (2012) 1 PLJR 663
- Uday Shankar Prasad v. The State of Bihar, (2017) 3 PLJR 824
- LPA No. 599 of 2015, Ramadhar Thakur v. The State of Bihar
After extensively analysing Rule 157(3)(J) and Rule 4 (clause 5) of the ACP Rules, 2003, the Division Bench in Ramadhar Thakur, as cited within Jivachi Devi, held that Rule 157(3)(J) makes passing the departmental accounts examination a condition for promotion to the selection grade, but not for general promotion.
Crucially, that Bench also held that for non-passing of such examination, the benefit of the ACP Rules cannot be denied unless there is a specific departmental rule for promotion requiring it. In other words, passing the departmental accounts examination is not a general condition precedent for grant of ACP, and Rule 157(3)(J) does not create such a requirement by itself.
The Jivachi Devi judgment also referred to a series of earlier decisions such as Mithilesh Kumar Sinha, Syed Mozammil Ashraf, Shashi Shekhar Ambasta, Maheshwar Prasad Singh, Rameshwar Roy, Daya Shankar Singh and Md. Shamsuddin, all pointing to the same conclusion: departmental or accounts examinations are necessary for crossing efficiency bar, confirmation and promotion to selection grade, but not for ordinary promotion or ACP, unless the particular service rules say so.
Applying these settled principles, the Division Bench in the present LPA agreed with the Single Judge. It held that, in view of the law laid down by successive Division Benches and the factual situation of the seasonal clerk having no promotional avenue, the State was not justified in insisting on passing the departmental accounts examination as a precondition for ACP.
The Bench found no infirmity in the Single Judge’s judgment dated 20.12.2017, which had recognised the petitioner’s entitlement to consideration for ACP under the scheme.
Accordingly, the Division Bench dismissed the State’s appeal. It further issued a strong direction to ensure compliance. The appellants were ordered to grant the ACP benefit to the writ petitioner within four weeks from the date of the judgment. The Court added a clear consequence: if this is not done within the stipulated time, the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, and the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Kaimur at Bhabhua shall not draw their salary.
This final direction shows the Court’s seriousness in protecting employees from prolonged denial of benefits already settled by law.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant for many government employees in Bihar, especially those stuck on posts with no scope of promotion, like seasonal staff and other stagnating cadres.
The Patna High Court has reaffirmed that the ACP Scheme is meant to relieve stagnation, not to create fresh hurdles. Where there is no promotional avenue, the department cannot demand that an employee clear a departmental accounts examination for ACP when no such exam is prescribed for any actual promotion.
For employees, this means that if they are on a post that has no higher promotional post, the department cannot use non-passing of a departmental exam as an excuse to deny ACP, unless clear service rules require such an exam even in that situation.
The judgment also sends a message to government departments about compliance. By linking the senior officers’ salary to timely implementation of the ACP order, the Court has signalled that delay or resistance to settled legal positions will not be tolerated.
For lawyers and service associations, the decision strengthens a consistent line of authority from the Patna High Court on ACP and departmental examinations, citing important earlier rulings like Jivachi Devi and Uday Shankar Prasad.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Can the State deny Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefits to a seasonal clerk on the ground that he has not passed the departmental accounts examination, when there is no promotional post from his cadre?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that where there is no promotional avenue from a post, there can be no requirement of passing a departmental examination for ACP, unless specific departmental rules so provide. The appeal by the State was dismissed and ACP benefits were directed to be granted.
Cases Cited by the Court
- Uday Shankar Prasad v. The State of Bihar & Ors., 2017 (3) PLJR 824
- Gorakh Nath Choudhary v. The State of Bihar & Ors., CWJC No. 11713 of 2010, judgment dated 27.09.2012
- Shio Chand Gupta v. The State of Bihar & Ors., LPA No. 1138 of 2014, judgment dated 20.09.2017
- State of Bihar & Ors. v. Smt. Jivachi Devi, 2020 (2) BLJ 471
- Bishwanath Prasad v. The State of Bihar, (2011) 2 PLJR 136
- Avinash Chandra Singh v. The State of Bihar, (2012) 1 PLJR 663
- State of Bihar v. Anjani Kumar, (2013) 2 PLJR 643
- Ramadhar Thakur v. State of Bihar, LPA No. 599 of 2015
- Mithilesh Kumar Sinha v. The State of Bihar, (2006) 1 PLJR 282
- Syed Mozammil Ashraf v. The State of Bihar, (2007) 1 PLJR 438
- Shashi Shekhar Ambasta v. The State of Bihar, (2011) 3 PLJR 474
- Maheshwar Prasad Singh v. The State of Bihar, (2000) 4 PLJR 262
- Rameshwar Roy v. The State of Bihar, (2017) 2 PLJR 127
- Daya Shankar Singh v. The State of Bihar, (2010) 3 PLJR 220
- Md. Shamsuddin v. The State of Bihar, 1983 PLJR 347
- Masomat Indu Devi v. State of Bihar, (2019) 2 PLJR 241
Case Details
Case Number: Letters Patent Appeal No. 372 of 2019 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19307 of 2013
Case Title: The State of Bihar & Ors. v. Shri Krishna Singh & Anr.
Citation: 2022 (3) PLJR 119
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah
Advocates: For the appellants (State): Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, AAG-5, and Mr. Anisul Haque, AC to AAG-5; For the respondents: Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Advocate
Nature of the Case: Letters Patent Appeal against a Single Judge judgment in a writ petition concerning grant of Assured Career Progression (ACP) benefits to a seasonal clerk of the Water Resources Department.
Final Outcome: Appeal dismissed; direction to grant ACP benefits to the writ petitioner within four weeks, failing which the Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, and the Executive Engineer, Water Resources Department, Kaimur at Bhabhua shall not draw their salary.
Link to Judgment: Click here to access the official Patna High Court judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
