Judgment R.N.Sahay, J. 1. The petitioner belongs to cadre of Deputy Collector and at present posted as District Panchayat Raj Officer, at Ranchi. He has moved this Court with two fold grievances. His first grievance is that he has not been given time bound promotion within the due time. His second grievance is that the date of his confirmation is wrong. He has, therefore, prayed for quashing the notification dated 11.3.1991 (Annexure-11) by which he has been confirmed w.e.f. 13-2-1991 and notification dated 14-5-1992 (Annexure-12) by which he has been given time bound promotion to the Junior Selection Grade w.e.f. 1-1-1992. 2. In order to appreciate the case of the petitioner it would be necessary to state the relevant facts in brief which are as follows:- - The petitioner joined as Sub-Deputy Collector on 2.9.1974..He became Deputy Collector w.e.f. 1.4.1976. He is a member of Schedule caste. He had earlier come to this Court for the reliefs claimed in this application. The Writ Application (CWJC No. 2190/92 (R)) was disposed of in terms of direction issued to respondent No.3 vide Annexure-1. this Court had directed to respondent No.3 to consider the representation of the petitioner and dispose of the same by a reasoned order. 3. The petitioner having not been granted relief as prayed by him, has again moved this Court. 4. As noted earlier, the petitioner vide notification dated 21.3.1987 became the Deputy Collector w.e.f. 1.4.1976. His case is that he had satisfactorily prepared the case records and had completed the Treasury training as per the rules. The case records were submitted on 26.12.1981 and after scrutiny found satisfactory, as is evident from the letter of the Deputy Secretary Law (Judicial) Department, Govt. of Bihar dated 21.7.1983 (Annexure-3). By letter dated 8.3.1989, the Board of Revenue, Bihar communicated that the Revenue case records submitted by the petitioner has been found to be satisfactory and accepted. However, the date of submission of case records was shown as 13.1.1989. The first objection of the petitioner is here. According to the petitioner case record has been submitted to the competent authority on 26.12.1981. The petitioner passed the first half yearly departmental examination in 1985 as appears from Annexure-7. The petitioner had passed the examination in the lower standard. However, the date of submission of case records was shown as 13.1.1989. The first objection of the petitioner is here. According to the petitioner case record has been submitted to the competent authority on 26.12.1981. The petitioner passed the first half yearly departmental examination in 1985 as appears from Annexure-7. The petitioner had passed the examination in the lower standard. The petitioner invited the attention of Central Examination Committee to the resolution of the Appointment Committee contained in Memo No. 21176 dated 7.12.1971 (Annexure-9) and claimed that in terms of said Resolution an Officer who is a Scheduled Caste should be deemed to have been passed departmental examination in the higher standard even he has actually passed in the lower standard. According to this resolution the departmental examination is not treated to be examination for the purpose of promotion. But at the time of confirmation/promotion it would be a relevant factor for consideration as to whether officer has or has not completed his departmental responsibilities. But for the purposes of confirmation of a Sub-Deputy Collector it is essential to pass departmental examination by lower standard and for promotion to pass examination at higher standard. It was further decided that, in respect of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe the pass mark would be reduced by 10 per cent. The second Para of Annexure-9 which relates to promotion of Sub-Deputy Collectors is no longer relevant after merger of the two cadres. The petitioner has pressed his case for promotion on the basis of Annexure-9. He contends that he having passed departmental examination by lower standard, by virtue of Annexure-9, he would be deemed to have passed the examination by higher standard also. The petitioner has further stated that under letter No. 2013 dated 13-2-1991 (Annexure-10) the petitioner has been granted exemption from the liabilities of passing Law Part-II and submission of the case records. It is apparent from Annexure-10/1 of the writ application that the petitioner having been exempted from the liability of passing Law Part-II examination and submission of case records he became eligible for increment, efficiency bar, confirmation and promotion etc. Thus Para 3 of this annexure has created confusion. Para 3 says that the benefits mentioned above will be granted from the date of issuance of the letter i.e. from 13-2-1991. 5. Mr. Thus Para 3 of this annexure has created confusion. Para 3 says that the benefits mentioned above will be granted from the date of issuance of the letter i.e. from 13-2-1991. 5. Mr. A. K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the decision to grant confirmation from the date of issuance of Annexure-10/1 is arbitrary based on wrong assumption of facts and misinterpretation of the rules. The petitioner in compliance of the relevant rules had submitted the case records to the authority much earlier and was accepted. There is no reason why the petitioner was given benefit of confirmation and promotion from February 1991. This has adversely affected has confirmation/promotion and consequently monetary benefits due to the petitioner under the rules particularly Finance Departments Memo No. 4656 dated 4.8.1987 (Annexure-1002). The petitioner was confirmed as Deputy Collector w.e.f. 13.2.1991 (date of issuance of Annexure-10/1). vide notification dated 11.3.1991 (Annexure-1). Shir Sinha contended that the petitioners date of confirmation shown to be 13.2.1991 is wholly arbitrary. He should have been confirmed in July 1985 when he had cleared the departmental examination. The petitioner has given Junior Selection Grade by notification dated 14.5.1992 (Annexure-12) The promotion-has been termed as Ad hoc provisional time bound effective from 1-1-1992. The second objection of the petitioner is on the above score. The petitioner is entitled to promotion to Junior Selection Grade in terms of Annexure-13 after shifting his date of confirmation to July 1985. Alternatively the petitioner claims that he is entitled to Junior Selection Grade w.e.f. 1.4.1980 after four years of service in view of decision contained in Annexure-14 whereby a Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe office is elligible for Selection Grade after four years of service. The petitioner has been completed 10 years of service on 1.4.1986 and accordingly, in terms of resolution of Finance Department dated 18.12.1989 he is entitled to time bound promotion. . 6. In the light of these facts the petitioner has claimed following reliefs :- - (A) Confirmation w.e.f. 1-4-1976 or from July 1985 the date of publication of resolution of the first yearly examination-1985. (B) Promotion to the Junior Selection Grade of Deputy Collector w.e.f. 1.4.1980. (C) Grant of time bound promotion w.e.f. 1.4.1986. 7. . 6. In the light of these facts the petitioner has claimed following reliefs :- - (A) Confirmation w.e.f. 1-4-1976 or from July 1985 the date of publication of resolution of the first yearly examination-1985. (B) Promotion to the Junior Selection Grade of Deputy Collector w.e.f. 1.4.1980. (C) Grant of time bound promotion w.e.f. 1.4.1986. 7. The respondents have tried to justify the impugned decision by stating the following facts in their counter affidavit which for convenience is quoted below:- - In its advice Board of Revenue had mentioned that the Revenue case record which was to be submitted in the Board of Revenue was actually submitted in the Law Department and it was actually received in the Board of Revenue on 28.9.1983. There was some defect in it so far notification, it was returned to the petitioner on 17.1.1984. After a lapse of more than three years, it was again received on 1.5.1987 through Deputy Director Consolidation, Sitamarhi with the same defects. So again it was returned on 12.8.1987 for the rectification. That after a lapse of nearly two years it was directly returned by Sri Prasad on 13.1.1989 with desired corrections. At last it was accepted by the Board of Revenue and accordingly it was communicated vide letter dated 8.34989. So keeping in view of the above facts it can be concluded that the lapse was only on the part of the petitioner and not from the end of the respondents. So the claim of the petitioner that the delay was caused by the respondents are basically not true and the petitioner is solely responsible for that. That as regards the petitioners passing the examination the Board of Revenue had advised according to principles laid down in Circular No. 21176 dated 7.9.1971 and said that after giving 10% of the grace marks he should get at least 50% marks for passing the examination. Instead of that he obtained only 43 and 44 marks. So he did fail in the said examination, because for a Deputy Collector there is no question of passing the examination from the lower standard as Deputy Collector is required to pass the examination only from the higher standard. Accordingly Rule 22 of the Deptt. Instead of that he obtained only 43 and 44 marks. So he did fail in the said examination, because for a Deputy Collector there is no question of passing the examination from the lower standard as Deputy Collector is required to pass the examination only from the higher standard. Accordingly Rule 22 of the Deptt. Examination Rules Part I applicable to all Gazetted Officers and Part-II applicable to officers of the Bihar Civil Service (Executive Branch) and the Bihar Junior Civil Service" Confirmation deals with "An officer of the Bihar Civil Service (Executive Branch) will be confirmed in the Service after (a) he has redered two years of continuous service as a Deputy Collector, (b) he has passed the Departmental Examination completely by the higher standard and (c) Govt. consider the officer as suitable in all respects for confirmation in the service." That sub-para (b) above clearly shows that for a Deputy Collector passing of departmental examination completely by the higher standard is essential. So the notification issued by the Deptt. of Personnel and A.R. regarding his case record, confirmation and time bound promotion are correct and there is no need of any change in it. 8. With regard to the grievance of the petitioner about the date of his promotion the following facts have been stated in Para 11 of the counter-affidavit:- - 11. That with regard to the statements made in Para 25, it is stated that according to Notification No. 2776 dated 142.1979 a Deputy Collector is entitled for consideration of promotion only in the next year of his confirmation. . The petitioner had been confirmed w.e.f. 13.2.1991 vide Notification No. 3281 dated 11.3.1991. Accordingly Shri Prasad got time bound promotion from 1.1.1992 vide Notification No. 4591 dated 14.5.1992. 9. Further the case of the respondents is that the petitioner could not be granted Junior Selection Grade earlier. He can be granted Junior Selection Grade only after four years from the date of his confirmation i.e. 13.2.1991. 10.At this stage, reference to departmental examination rules Part-I applicable to all Gazetted Officers and Part-II applicable to Bihar Civil Service Examination Branch, may be referred to. Rule 22 of Part-II of the Rules which deals with the confirmation of officers of Bihar Civil Service Executive Branch. There are there pre-requisite conditions:- - (a) He has rendered two years of continuous service as Dy. Rule 22 of Part-II of the Rules which deals with the confirmation of officers of Bihar Civil Service Executive Branch. There are there pre-requisite conditions:- - (a) He has rendered two years of continuous service as Dy. Collector, (b) He has passed the departmental examination completely by higher standard and (c) Government consider officer as suitable in all respects for confirmation of the service. So far as petitioner is concerned, be was appointed as Dy. Collector in 1976. He had passed the departmental examination in the lower standard in 1985. It has been pointed out in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner despite relaxation in qualifying mark in the departmental examination failed to pass the examination. The entire matter has been clarified in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. It is apparent that the petitioner did not pass the departmental examination by the higher standard as required by the departmental examination rules. The petitioner has been exempted from the departmental liabilities after 13.2.1991 since he had completed 50 years of age. This is the reason the petitioner was confirmed vide notification dated 11.3.1991. It is, therefore, clear that the petitioner having not passed the departmental examination was not eligible for confirmation but for Circular (Annexure-C) which exempts an officer who has completed 50 years of age in passing the departmental examination. The petitioner in his rejoinder states that he had passed the departmental examination and fulfilled all the requirements for confirmation as would appear from the table given in Para 2 of the rejoinder. 10 Shri Sinha submitted that on merger of the cadre the petitioner became Deputy Collector w.e.f. 1.4.1976. He had passed all the departmental examination as Deputy Collector and as such in view of Annexure-9 he shall be deemed to have passed by higher standard. It is admitted that the petitioner secured 43 marks in two papers in Part-II examination and so he had also passed the examination by higher standard and not by lower standard. In other words the petitioner disowns Annexures-7 and 8. In Annexure-7 he is shown to have passed the departmental examination by lower standard which is reiterated in Annexure-8. In my opinion, the petitioner can not rely on Annexure-9 which is out dated circular which has become redundant after merger of cadres. 11. In other words the petitioner disowns Annexures-7 and 8. In Annexure-7 he is shown to have passed the departmental examination by lower standard which is reiterated in Annexure-8. In my opinion, the petitioner can not rely on Annexure-9 which is out dated circular which has become redundant after merger of cadres. 11. Shri Sinha has argued that under Rule 17 of the Departmental Examination Rule the date of submission of case records is relevant date and not the date the Board of Revenue gave its clearance i.e. 13-1-1989. The petitioner has not controverted the allegation in the counter-affidavit that be was responsible for the delay in submitting the case records for the reasons which was not submitted to the Board of Revenue but to the Law Department. The case record was defective and the same was returned to the petitioner for rectification. The petitioner resubmitted the case records on 1-5-1977 through the Deputy Director with the same defects. It was again returned on 12.8.1987 for rectification. It was returned to the petitioner on 13.1.1989 for desired correction. 12. In the light of the foregoing facts it is not possible to accept the contention of Shri Sinha that the date of submission of the case records was only relevant and since the Board of Revenue found the record to be satisfactory which shall be deemed to have got clearance in the year 1981. This question would be relevant only if the petitioner had passed the departmental examination by higher standard. It is admitted position that the petitioner had passed the examination by lower standard and he can not be deemed to have passed examination by higher standard by relying on Annexure-9. Rule 22 of the Departmental Examination Rules is very clear. An officer has to pass the departmental examination completely by higher standard for being confirmed. The petitioner has no doubt been confirmed by giving benefit of Circular (Annexure-C). He was accordingly confirmed w.e.f. 13.2.1991 without having passed the departmental examination. Shri Sinha submitted that once the petitioner was allowed the benefit of confirmation he was entitled to be confirmed with retrospective effect from the date his confirmation became due i.e. be had worked for two years as Deputy Collector. In my opinion, such an interpretation of Shri Sinha can not be accepted in absence of any decision of the Government in this regard. In my opinion, such an interpretation of Shri Sinha can not be accepted in absence of any decision of the Government in this regard. It is for the Government to relax the rules and it will be open to the petitioner to file representation to confirm him with retrospective effect provided giving confirmation with retrospective effect does not adversely affect on other officers, who were confirmed earlier to the petitioner. 13. Shri Sinha submitted that the petitioner was entitled to time bound promotion after completion of 10 years of service in terms of recommendation of Pay Revision Committee as accepted by the State Government and grant of time bound promotion was not dependent for confirmation. It is submitted that if an officer can not be confirmed for several reasons but nevertheless he has right to get time bound promotion if his service is otherwise satisfactory since he completes ten years of service. No such circular has been brought to my notice except the pay revision committee report. Respondents have annexed amendment in the Bihar Civil Service Examination Branch Rules (Annexure-B) which is not clear whether this amendment pertains to Junior Selection Grade. 14. In any view of the matter, the petitioner has been unable to make out a clear case for the reliefs prayed for in the writ application. This application accordingly, fails. However, if so advised, the petitioner may file a fresh representation to the concerned authority in respect of his grievance. There shall be no order as to costs.