Ashutosh Kumar, J. – A Single Judge of this Court in Kamlanand Thakur vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (C.W.J.C. No. 18727 of 2017) [: 2021 (6) BLJ 260], while dealing with the issue, viz., whether passing of Departmental Accounts Examination is a condition precedent for grant of benefits under the Bihar State Employees Condition of Service (Assured Career Progression Scheme) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the A.C.P. Rules), referred the matter to a larger Bench, formulating the following questions to be decided: –

(I) Whether Clause [J] of sub-rule (3) of Rule 157 of the Bihar Board's Miscellaneous Rules, 1958 applies for grant of Assured Career Progression under the Bihar State Employees Condition of Service (Assured Career Progression Scheme) Rules, 2003?

(II) Whether Clause [J] of sub- Rule (3) of Rule 157 of the Bihar Board's Miscellaneous Rules, 1958 is confined to passing of preliminary examination in accounts/final examination in accounts for the purposes of confirmation, crossing the efficiency bar and promotion to selection grade only and not for regular promotion.

(III) Any other ancillary question(s) arising out of the above-mentioned issues/questions.

2. Similarly, a Division Bench of this Court in The State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Manzar Hassan (L.P.A. No. 1609 of 2019 arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 7751 of 2016), noting the divergence of opinion on the issue, again made a referral to a larger Bench for deciding whether Rule 157(3)[J] of the Bihar Board's Miscellaneous Rules, 1958, stipulating passing of Accounts Examination, would be deemed necessary for availing the monetary benefit under the A.C.P. Rules, 2003, particularly Rule 4(5), as time-bound promotion is a substitute of selection grade and A.C.P. is the substitute of time-bound promotion, particularly in the view of the fact that the purpose behind introduction of Selection Grade and A.C.P. is one and same.

3. In the Division Bench referral (LPA No. 1609 of 2019), the Bench had noted that in some of the cases, viz., State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Anjani Kumar (D.B.) : 2013 (2) PLJR 643; State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Mahendra Baitha (D.B.) : 2018 (3) PLJR 173; The State of Bihar vs. Md. Naisruddin (D.B.) : 2016 (3) PLJR 861; State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Kusheshwar Nath Pandey and Anr. (D.B.) : 2013 (1) PLJR 939; Maheshwar Pd. Singh (F.B.) : 2000 (4) PLJR 262; and Daya Shankar Singh vs. State of Bihar & Ors., 2010 (3) PLJR 220 (S.J.), it had been decided that there would be no need to pass the Accounts Examination under Rule 157(3)[J] of the Bihar Board’s Miscellaneous Rules, 1958 or for getting benefits of A.C.P., which is only a financial progression, and such examination is a must only if it is provided in the specific Service Rules for crossing the efficiency bar and for being given Selection Grade.

4. On the other hand, the judgments rendered in Ramadhar Thakur vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [L.P.A. No. 599 of 2015 (D.B.)]; Uday Shankar Pd. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (D.B.) : 2017 (3) PLJR 824; State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Sri Ram Subhag Singh : 2022 (2) PLJR 773; State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Smt. Jivachi Devi : 2020 (2) BLJ 471 and in Indu Devi vs. State of Bihar & Ors. : 2019 (2) BLJ 330, clarified that for getting the benefits of A.C.P., there would be no particular need for passing the Accounts Examination as provided under the Bihar Board’s Miscellaneous Rules, 1958.

5. The case of Uday Shankar Prasad (supra) was taken to Supreme Court at the instance of the State of Bihar, in which, though the S.L.P. was dismissed, but it was observed by the Supreme Court that the Division Bench of the High Court did not address itself to the issue that there would be far-reaching consequences in the service condition, as people who claim A.C.P. may not take any efforts to improve their performance by passing the Accounts test.

6. The S.L.P., referred to above, was dismissed only for the reason of Uday Shankar Prasad/respondent therein, being at the fag end of his service career and that he had l