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, i