The integral nature of the conditions laid down in sub-rule (5) of rule 4 of the 2003 A.C.P. Rules and the need to consider the entirety of the scheme of the Rule when evaluating a claim for entitlement under the A.C.P. Rules.

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI, J.

1. The State of Bihar is aggrieved by the order and judgment, dated 25.04.2016, passed by the Learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 13975 of 2011.

2. Writ Application of the private-respondent, who was the petitioner, was allowed by the Learned Single Judge with a direction upon the State authorities to grant benefit of A.C.P., despite the accepted position that the private-respondent had never passed the departmental examination.

3. The decision of the Learned Single Judge was based on an observation made in the case of Avinash Chandra Singh v. the State of Bihar & ors., reported in 2012 (1) P.L.J.R. 663. Portions of the said observation has been quoted in the order, which formed basis for allowing the writ application.

4. The learned Additional Advocate General, representing the State of Bihar submits that the Learned Single Judge missed out the basic essence of the adjudication and the reliance placed by him on Avinash Chandra Singh’s case (supra), has been quoted out of context and the real essence of the dispute whether the benefit of A.C.P. could be granted to an employee, contrary to the Rules, laid down under Article 309 by the State of Bihar, is permissible. Learned Additional Advocate General No. 4 drew the attention of this Court to rule 4, sub-rule (5) of the Bihar ACP Rules, 2003, wherein certain conditions have been laid down before an employee can claim benefit under the A.C.P. Rules.

5. Further, attention of this Court has been drawn towards an order / judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Uday Shankar Prasad v. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2017 (3) PLJR 824. The Division Bench, while dealing with sub-rule (5) of rule 4, has this to say in paragraph 8 of the said judgment :

^4 ¼5½---- Ldhe ds v/khu osru mUu;u dh eatwjh dh fufgr v/;is{kk,¡ ,oa <ax ogh gksxsa tks HkrhZ@lsok fu;ekoyh esa fjfDr;ksa ds fo:} fu;fer izksUufr ds fy, fofgr fd;s x;s gksaA ;fn fdlh izksUufr ds fy, foHkkxh; ijh{kk ikl djuk ;k dksbZ vU; vgZrk fofgr dh x;h gS rks Ldhe ds v/khu ykHk dh eatwjh ds fy, Hkh og vfuok;Z 'krZ gksxh ;fn os 'krZsa fu;ekoyh@ifji=ksa@ladYiksa ds v/khu fofgr dh x;h gksa % ijUrq Ldhe ds v/khu foÙkh; mUu;u 12@24 o"kksZa dh lsok iw.kZ gksus ds ckn ns; gksxk vkSj blds fy, fu;fer izksUufr ds fy, fu/kkZfjr dkykof/k dksbZ ck/kk ugh gksxhA

Li"Vhdj.k % ¼1½ fdlh fu;ekoyh esa dfri; Jsf.k;ksa ds dfeZ;ksa dks fu;fer izksUurh ds fy, lsok dh dkyof/k esa f'kfFkyu ds izko/kku varfo"V jgus ij Hkh Ldhe ds v/khu foÙkh; mUu;u ds ykHk ds fy, fofgr ik=rk gsrq 12@24 Ok"kksZ dh dkykof/k esa dksbZ f'kfFkyu ugh nh tk;xhA

¼2½ ;fn ljdkjh lsod dks vuq'kklfud dk;Zokgh vkfn ds pyrs ;k izksUufr ds ;ksX; ugh ik, tkus ds pyrs ,0lh0ih0 ;kstuk ds v/khu izFke foÙkh; mUu;u dk ykHk Bhd 12 o"kZ ds ckn u nsdj foyac ls fn;k tkrk gSa rks ,0lh0ih0 ;kstuk ds v/khu nwljk foÙkh; mUu;u] izFke foÙkh; mUu;u dh frfFk ls 12 o"kksZa ckn fn;k tk;xkA

8. A perusal of the aforesaid rules clearly stipulates that the prescribed requirement and mode of sanction of financial progression under the scheme shall be the same which are prescribed under the Recruitment/Service Rule for regular promotion against the vacancy. It is, therefore, clear that for getting benefit under the scheme in question, an employee has to fulfill all the conditions stipulated in the Recruitment or the Service Rules which is prescribed for regular promotion from the post held to the next higher post. Admittedly, in the case in hand, for further promotion from the post of Compilation clerk to a higher post, no Service Rules are prescribed as there is no further avenue for promotion from post of Compilation clerk to any other higher post. That being so, sub rule 5 of Rule 4 and its interpretation would clearly show that for grant of ACP from the post of Compilation Clerk no rules of promotion or recruitment being prescribed, this rule will not apply, i.e. 4(5). Thus, there are no prescribed statutory rules for recruitment or promotion fr