Judgment 1. Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Grievance of the writ petitioners is that at the fag end of their service, they have been directed to undergo training in exercise of power under Rule 6 of Sub-In spector of Excise Recruitment Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been promoted from the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Excise to the post of Sub-Inspector of Excise and while they were functioning as Assistant Sub-Inspector of Excise, they had already undergone training as required under the Rules and, therefore, again they should not bo subjected to the training at the fag end of their service career. It is further submitted by learned counsel that the Board of Revenue is authorised to sanction departure from those rules in special cases on the recommendation of the Commissioner of Excise under Rule 8 of the Rules and in the given case, the petitioner should be granted exemption under Rule 8 of the Rules. 4. It is pointed out by learned counsel that another batch of Sub-Inspector of Excise had approached the Board of Revenue for such relaxation under Rule 8 of the Rules but the same was declined owing to the fact that one set of writ application is pending before this court. 5. Learned counsel for the State, on the contrary, submitted that since the petitioners are newly promoted Sub-Inspector of Excise, they are required to undergo training under Rule 6 of the Rules and they cannot make any excuse for not getting training as directed by the authorities. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners now states that this would be the first batch of Sub-Inspectors of Excise to go for training and there is no precedence to show that at this stage the Sub-Inspectors of Excise who were promoted from the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Excise, were ever sent for training. 7. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and controversy which has arisen in this matter, in my opinion, the petitioners should approach the Board of Revenue requesting it to grant such exemption under Rule 8 of the Rules. 8. 7. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and controversy which has arisen in this matter, in my opinion, the petitioners should approach the Board of Revenue requesting it to grant such exemption under Rule 8 of the Rules. 8. In case any representation is filed by the petitioners by 29th April, 2005, the Member, Board of Revenue shall consider the same keeping in view their age and pass necessary orders in accordance with law within a period of fifteen days from.the date of filing of the representation. 9. Till a decision is taken by the Board of Revenue, the petitioners will not be forced to go for training. 10. With the aforesaid observation/ direction, this application is disposed of. 11. Let a copy of this order be handed over to learned Standing Counsel No. 4.