Promotion eligibility should not be denied due to examination non-conductivity caused by exceptional circumstances such as a pandemic.

J U D G M E N T

The petitioner was appointed as L.D. Clerk with the 5^th respondent herein, and the 6^th respondent was also appointed by the 5^th respondent as L.D Store Keeper. The petitioner was appointed earlier than the 6^th respondent. The appointment of the petitioner as above was approved, whereas the appointment of the 6^th respondent was not approved since there were no notifications issued by the 5^th respondent in the matter. However, only a warning was issued at Ext.P6 by the Government for carrying out the appointment of the 6^th respondent as above. Later, a vacancy arose in the post of Senior/U.D Clerk. The petitioner applied for the afore post, and he also had to clear the departmental tests. The departmental test was notified to be conducted with the last examination scheduled to be conducted on 29.03.2020. However on account of the Covid-19 pandemic, the examination as scheduled could not be conducted and ultimately it was conducted only on 10.10.2020, the petitioner successfully coming out of the afore test. On that basis, the petitioner was promoted later on 01.07.2021, the afore promotion being subsequently approved by Ext.P14. However, the 6^th respondent sought to file a complaint pointing out that, with reference to the provisions of Rule 28BBB of Part II KS&SSR, the date of the last examination (29.03.2020) was the relevant date and since on that date the petitioner was not qualified, he could not be promoted (since the tests did not take place). By Ext.P17 order dated 03.06.2023, the 2^nd respondent herein accepted the afore complaint and cancelled the approval of the appointment granted to the petitioner as above. This is followed by Ext.P18 issued by the 3^rd respondent, directing the 6^th respondent to be promoted to the post of Senior/U.D Clerk. It is seeking to challenge orders at Exts.P17 and P18 issued as above that the petitioner has filed a captioned writ petition.

2. Heard Sri.S.Shyam Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.Brijesh Mohan, the learned counsel for the 5^th respondent, Sri.T.D.Susmith Kumar, the learned counsel for the 6^th respondent and Sri.Sunil Nath, the learned Government Pleader.

3. The short issue arising for consideration is as regards the sustainability or otherwise of Exts.P17 and P18 issued as above.

4. The 5^th respondent has filed a counter affidavit pointing out that the Government, taking note of the inability to conduct the examination during the Covid period, has come out with a Government Order dated 21.10.2023, clarifying that even with respect to those cases where the applicant could not acquire the required qualification on account of the non conduct of the examination, an eligible claim is not to be defeated.

5. In the light of the afore, I am of the opinion that the consideration made while issuing Exts.P17 and P18 does not appear to be correct. This Court also notices the counter affidavit filed by the 2^nd respondent wherein, with reference to the Government Order referred to above, the Government has clarified that the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Government.

6. As already noticed, it is only on account of the non-conducting of the exams as originally scheduled due to Covid-19 pandemic – a reason beyond the control of the petitioner- he could not clear that exam on 29.03.2020. Admittedly, he has cleared the same in the next available opportunity also. So in my opinion, as subsequently clarified by the Government, the petitioner's claim is not to be declined.

7. In the light of afore, I am of the opinion that a re