I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. Petitioner seeks quashing of the letter no.1237 dated 11.10.2011, as contained in Annexure 14, issued by the Additional Secretary Registration, Excise and Prohibition Department, Bihar, Patna (respondent no.3) by which the claim of the petitioner for granting exemption from passing the departmental examination in view of the provision contained in letter no.11691 dated 09.11.1983 and letter no.4674 dated 15.05.1992 issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna and also as per letter no.4368 dated 28.8.2009, has been refused on the ground that the petitioner had appeared only once in the examination and as such it cannot be treated as continuous effort made by him for passing departmental examination as well as on the further ground that, in the year 2004, a punishment of “warning” has been recorded against him.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner fulfils all the criteria and conditions laid down in the letter no.11691 dated 9.11.1983 (Annexure 9) as well as letter no.4674 dated 15.05.1992 (Annexure 9/1) and letter no.3/M-06/2009 Ka. 4368 dated 28.8.2009 (Annexure 18). He has already competed 50 years and, thus, had applied for grant of exemption from appearing at the examination.

4. Short facts which would be necessary for consideration of lis are enumerated as under:

5. Petitioner was appointed as Excise Constable on 12.5.1977 and his service was confirmed on 19.12.1996. Thereafter, it is claimed by the petitioner that he was performing his duty to the utmost satisfaction to his superior. However, when his own son died suddenly, on hearing the sad news, he immediately went to his home without waiting for grant of leave, that had resulted in entry of “warning” in his service book on 2.07.2004. This is the only adverse remarks that stands entered in his service book. The case of the petitioner is that no punishment has ever been awarded to him either before or after the aforesaid “warning” and he possesses a clean record. After the aforesaid “warning” having been entered in his service book, the petitioner was granted promotion on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Excise with effect from 27.10.2004 vide Annexure 1. The petitioner appeared in the departmental examination conducted from 30.08.2008 to 01.09.2008. He had cleared two papers out of five and, thereafter, no departmental examination has been conducted by the department. The petitioner filed his representation on 11.01.2010 (Annexure 5) with a request to grant promotion after granting exemption from appearance at the departmental examination as it was noticed by him from the seniority list vide letter dated 11.04.2002 contained in Annexure 2 that one Md. Shafique whose name has figuring at serial no.35 has been promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector, Excise but the petitioner whose name appears at serial no.34 has not been considered for promotion.

6. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No.603 of 2011 which was disposed of on 23.06.2011 with a direction to the Commissioner of Excise, Bihar, Patna to take a decision on the question of exemption. It was further directed that if the exemption is granted and the petitioner fulfils other requirements for promotion, a decision should be taken under the aforesaid order. The petitioner had raised grievance in that writ petition also that other similarly situated as well as junior persons have been granted exemption and thereafter promotion. However, his request has been turned done by the impugned decision vide Annexure 14 contained in letter no.1237 dated 11.10.2011 on the grounds which have been mentioned above.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure 6 by which three persons, namely, Parmanand Rai, Md. Safique and Md. Zahir have been granted exemption from appearance in the examination as well as Annexure 7 which is o