Judgment 1. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 2. This letters patent appeal has been against the order dated 4 February, 2003 on CWJC. No. 2183 of 2001: Chandra Shekhar Roy V/s. The Bihar State Electricity Board & Ors. 3. The petitioner-appellant is claiming continuity in promotion to the post of Accounts Assistant. The petitioner-appellant had entered the service of the Mithila Area Electricity Board in 1967. He was serving in the cadre of Subordinate Accounts Service. The petitioner-appellant was an accounts man. 4. In 1988 in pursuance of an office order no. 5153 dated 23 August, 1988 several persons received promotion to the post of Junior Accounts Clerk/Bill Clerk provided they had completed 12 years of service as on 31 March, 1986. This was meant for such of those employees who had not passed the departmental examination permitting promotion to a higher post. It needs to be kept in mind that all these persons were Accountants in a specialist cadre. Such persons who had been given an exemption to receive promotion and even in this exemption persons had to be found fit to receive promotion sans qualification. even these promotions were to be on the vacant sanctioned posts. Further, this promotion permitted, on the ground of exemption did not give right to such persons on seniority. The promotion was an exception not the normalcy of the situation. 5. Clearly, the petitioner-appellant was not qualified on the basis of having passed a departmental examination. The issue is not that persons like the petitioner-appellant had failed in the examination. Simply, they had not even taken the examination. The twelve years of experience permitted them an adhoc promotion including emoluments which went with it. Three persons referred to in the order who had earlier been exempted, had subsequently passed the departmental examination. 6. There is a case of one Chandrasekhar Jha (L.P.A. No. 1356 of 1995 arising out of CWJC. No. 5849 of 1995) being cited. But, bad practices do not make good precedents. That was a case of return of salary and transfer and was not exactly similar to the issue of persons as a class who had received promotion on an exemption which was an exception. In the circumstances, the equality clause would not apply. 7. No. 5849 of 1995) being cited. But, bad practices do not make good precedents. That was a case of return of salary and transfer and was not exactly similar to the issue of persons as a class who had received promotion on an exemption which was an exception. In the circumstances, the equality clause would not apply. 7. The aspect which has not been noticed either by the petitioner-appellant in pleadings or by the respondents or in the impugned order is that after retirement the petitioner-appellant was virtually claiming time bound promotion. This aspect may be noticed in paragraph-19 of the writ petition. It reads : "that is also important to mention here that the petitioner was appointed on 24.7.1967 on the post of Junior Accounts Clerk and he has served the Board more than 33 years and as such he has become entitled for his two time bound promotion". 8. In the circumstances, even if the petitioner-appellant could claim time bound promotion it was at the time when he had been granted exemption under office order no. 5153 dated 23 August, 1988. The petitioner-appellant waited for 15 years to seek this claim from the High Court. The court is not called upon to judge any merits of the matter. The petitioner-appellant accepted the situation of an exemption which was granted to him on the post on which he worked. On this exemption he may have received his salary for the work discharged by him. The petitioner-appellant certainly did not have the qualification. The court is expressing nothing on the aspect of the substantive promotion which could be received as recourse to a departmental examination and passing it. The case was submitted as for regular promotion. No instance of time bound promotion to others in the same class and category was shown to demonstrate discrimination on this account. 9. While this matter was being considered learned counsel for the appellant drew the attention of the court that recently the appellant has received a communication to the effect that regard being had to the circumstances that his promotion may have been adhoc on the basis of an exemption, he may refund the amount between his substantive post and the adhoc promoted post. This is a communication bearing office order no. 84 dated 7 April, 2003. 10. The court is not answering this aspect on merits. This is a communication bearing office order no. 84 dated 7 April, 2003. 10. The court is not answering this aspect on merits. Factually, if the petitioner-appellant has worked on a promoted post and discharged work on it whether by exemption or by otherwise and has received salary on the post and there is no misrepresentation then asking for refund may be unfair. 11. The only thing which is now to be examined is whether the petitioner-appellant received a promotion, even if it was under an exemption order and, in fact, worked on the promoted post and received emoluments on the promoted post, whether refund may be not appropriate. But this will need to be examined by the Board. In so far as the order of the learned judge is concerned, it does not suffer from any error. 12. The appeal, thus, stands dismissed.