Judgment S. N. Jha, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the sole petitioner for quashing the office orders as contained in Memo No.1283 dated december 17, 1993 and Memo No.783 dated July 5, 1994 as well as part of the last Pay Certificate (LPC) sent vide memo No.904 dated August 4, 1994. True copies of the said memos have been annexed to the writ petition as an-nexures 1,2 and 3. The writ petition further seeks mandamus to the respondents not to deduct the amount said to have been illegally paid to the petitioner @ Rs.1000/- per month with effect from July 16, 1979, as directed in the impugned orders. The relevant facts are as follows. 2. The State Government framed rules under Article 309 of the Constitution called Bihar Government Servants (Hindi Examination) Rules, 1968 , which were notified on June 15, 1968 making it compulsory for the Government servants to pass Hindi Noting and Drafting examination. As per the said rules those who do not pass the examination will not be entitled to annual increments etc. The Bihar State Electricity board by Resolution No.537 dated July 16, 1979 adopted the said rules making the same applicable with effect from july 16, 1979 except with respect to the person who had crossed 50 years or more of age. 3. The petitioner, who is Class-Ill employee of the Board, admittedly has not passed the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination as yet. He has however been allowed increments from time to time between 1979 and 1993. 4. The contention of the counsel is that the petitioner should be held liable to pass the Hindi Noting and Drafting examination only after issuance of Annexure-8 on February 8, 1993. He pointed out that there was some confusion in the Board as to the categories of the employees/officers to whom the aforesaid resolution dated July 16,1979 was applicable. This confusion was set at rest only on February 8, 1993 when annexure-8 was issued. According to the counsel, further, no Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination having been held thereafter the petitioner cannot be made to suffer the consequences of the non-passing of the examination. 5. I regret it is not possible to accept the submissions of the counsel. This confusion was set at rest only on February 8, 1993 when annexure-8 was issued. According to the counsel, further, no Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination having been held thereafter the petitioner cannot be made to suffer the consequences of the non-passing of the examination. 5. I regret it is not possible to accept the submissions of the counsel. The resolution dated July 16, 1979 (Annexure-7) unambiguously provides that the aforesaid rules framed by the State government shall be applicable to all categories of officers and employees except those who are 50 years or more ofage. The position has not undergone any change by reason of the aforesaid communication dated February 8, 1993 (Annexure-8 ). The submission that no examination has been held since February, 1993 is not worth consideration because no such averment has been made in the writ petition. 6. Counsel contended that the impugned resolution merely creates obligation on the employees and officers of the Board to pass the concerned examination and isentitles them to future increments in the event they do not pass the examination. It however does not authorise the Board to recover the amount which has already been paid by way of annual increments. 7. The submission too is devoid of any merit. The deduction of the annual increments is not as a measure of punishment. From perusal of paragraphs 7 and 8 of the aforesaid rules i. e. Bihar Government Servants (Hindi Examination) Rules, 1968 , it is obvious that the failure to pass the examination results in disentitlement of the person concerned to annual increments, confirmation and crossing of efficiency bar. However, the stoppage of annual increments is not cumulative in effect. No sooner the person passes the examination he becomes entitled to the incerements as if the stoppage of increments had never taken place and also entitled to all consequential benefit. 8. In the above view of the matter it was/is open to the petitioner to appear in the concerned examination even after Annexure-8 was issued on February 8, 1993. Since the petitioner has failed to pass the examination even after the said period, I do not think it would be proper for this court to pass any positive order in his favour. This court is not supposed to pass any order and give direction contrary to the rules. 9. Since the petitioner has failed to pass the examination even after the said period, I do not think it would be proper for this court to pass any positive order in his favour. This court is not supposed to pass any order and give direction contrary to the rules. 9. Before I conclude, in fairness to the counsel for the petitioner, I may mention that during the course of hearing of the case it was stated that a writ petition involving similar point namely, cwjc No.346 of 1995 has been admitted and interim order has been passed. It was suggested that this writ petition should also be admitted and operation of the impugned orders be stayed. Admission of the case does not amount to an adjudication/decision on the dispute. The point being obvious, according to me, I did not think it necessary to postpone the disposal of the case merely because some writ petition has been admitted and the same is pending. In these premises, I do not find any merit in this writ application which is accordingly dismissed. Application Dismissed.