1. Whether the first time bound promotion was correctly granted to the petitioner and if not whether respondents could withdraw the same and what would be its consequence, is the question in the present writ application.

2. At the request of the Court, Shri Lalit Kishore, Senior Advocate and Additional Advocate General III agreed to assist the Court in the matter which is appreciated. Counter affidavits having been filed, with consent of parties, this writ application was heard at length for final disposal at the stage of admission itself.

3. The petitioner was granted first time bound promotion on 30.1.1996 (Annexure-5) with effect from 9.1.1994. In a Review Meeting dated 29.7.2006 (Annexure-C to the counter affidavit), it was found that the petitioner had not passed the Departmental Accounts Examination which was necessary for granting promotion. As such, he was found ineligible for the first time bound promotion and, accordingly, on 30.8.2006 (Annexure-i), the first time bound promotion, earlier granted, was cancelled and orders were issued for recovery of excess payment made to him which has brought the petitioner to this Court.

4. Petitioner's submissions are basically four folds. First, he was not required to pass departmental Accounts Examination and, thus, the withdrawal of first time bound promotion was misconceived. Second, in any view of the matter, there being no fraud or misrepresentation committed by him for getting the first time bound promotion which was granted by the Department itself, the same could not be withdrawn after ten years. Third, petitioner not being party to any fraud or misrepresentation in getting the first time bound promotion, order for recovery of money paid in excess could not be passed as he was not at fault and it would be highly inequitous to do so. Fourth and lastly, petitioner having attained the age of 50 years, he was entitled to relaxation and, thus, exempt from taking Accounts Examination which would then qualify him for first time bound promotion even if Accounts Examination was necessary.

5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General III submitted that time bound promotion was not automatic on expiry of the time prescribed but was dependent on two conditions being fulfilled. Firstly, the person should not have got, promotion or enhancement of pay scale by any reason apart from pay revision in the period concerned or prior to it and secondly and more importantly, he should be qualified and eligible for regular promotion. With reference to case of petitioner, it was submitted that passing of Accounts Examination was a condition precedent to be eligible for being considered for promotion and petitioner not having passed the said examination, thus being ineligible for promotion, could not be granted the first time bound promotion and secondly so far as relaxation/exemption with regard to Accounts Examination of attaining 50 years of age is concerned that itself is conditioned upon petitioner having attempted and failed in those examinations prior to attaining the said age and/or examinations not being held for five years immediately prior to attaining the age of 50 years, none of which condition was satisfied by the petitioner. Lastly, the State had right to correct a mistake committed by it and on such correction, necessary consequences would flow which cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary in any manner.

6. At this stage, I may also point out that initially petitioner stated that he was a field staff on the mechanical side and was, thus, not required to take Account Examination but in the counter affidavit, Government notifications have been brought on record which show that exemption from Accounts Examination stood withdrawn and during the exemption period, petitioner was not entitled to the time bound promotion and, as such, once the exemption was withdrawn, he had to pass the Accounts Examination. Confronted with this situation, the petitioner virtually gave up this