ORDER 1. Whether the first time bound promotion was correctly granted to the petitioner and if not whether respondents could withdraw the same and what would be its consequence, is the question in the present writ application. 2. At the request of the Court, Shri Lalit Kishore, Senior Advocate and Additional Advocate General III agreed to assist the Court in the matter which is appreciated. Counter affidavits having been filed, with consent of parties, this writ application was heard at length for final disposal at the stage of admission itself. 3. The petitioner was granted first time bound promotion on 30.1.1996 (Annexure-5) with effect from 9.1.1994. In a Review Meeting dated 29.7.2006 (Annexure-C to the counter affidavit), it was found that the petitioner had not passed the Departmental Accounts Examination which was necessary for granting promotion. As such, he was found ineligible for the first time bound promotion and, accordingly, on 30.8.2006 (Annexure-i), the first time bound promotion, earlier granted, was cancelled and orders were issued for recovery of excess payment made to him which has brought the petitioner to this Court. 4. Petitioner's submissions are basically four folds. First, he was not required to pass departmental Accounts Examination and, thus, the withdrawal of first time bound promotion was misconceived. Second, in any view of the matter, there being no fraud or misrepresentation committed by him for getting the first time bound promotion which was granted by the Department itself, the same could not be withdrawn after ten years. Third, petitioner not being party to any fraud or misrepresentation in getting the first time bound promotion, order for recovery of money paid in excess could not be passed as he was not at fault and it would be highly inequitous to do so. Fourth and lastly, petitioner having attained the age of 50 years, he was entitled to relaxation and, thus, exempt from taking Accounts Examination which would then qualify him for first time bound promotion even if Accounts Examination was necessary. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General III submitted that time bound promotion was not automatic on expiry of the time prescribed but was dependent on two conditions being fulfilled. 5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General III submitted that time bound promotion was not automatic on expiry of the time prescribed but was dependent on two conditions being fulfilled. Firstly, the person should not have got, promotion or enhancement of pay scale by any reason apart from pay revision in the period concerned or prior to it and secondly and more importantly, he should be qualified and eligible for regular promotion. With reference to case of petitioner, it was submitted that passing of Accounts Examination was a condition precedent to be eligible for being considered for promotion and petitioner not having passed the said examination, thus being ineligible for promotion, could not be granted the first time bound promotion and secondly so far as relaxation/exemption with regard to Accounts Examination of attaining 50 years of age is concerned that itself is conditioned upon petitioner having attempted and failed in those examinations prior to attaining the said age and/or examinations not being held for five years immediately prior to attaining the age of 50 years, none of which condition was satisfied by the petitioner. Lastly, the State had right to correct a mistake committed by it and on such correction, necessary consequences would flow which cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary in any manner. 6. At this stage, I may also point out that initially petitioner stated that he was a field staff on the mechanical side and was, thus, not required to take Account Examination but in the counter affidavit, Government notifications have been brought on record which show that exemption from Accounts Examination stood withdrawn and during the exemption period, petitioner was not entitled to the time bound promotion and, as such, once the exemption was withdrawn, he had to pass the Accounts Examination. Confronted with this situation, the petitioner virtually gave up this contention and, thus, the Court is left with assuming that requirement was there of passing Accounts Examination in so far as petitioner is concerned. There is no controversy that petitioner had passed Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination in the year 1986 itself. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was of regularization brought into regular establishment in 1992. 7. Thus, the facts remain that the petitioner's date of birth being 25.1.1954, he was initially appointed on 7.1.1984 (Annexure-2) which was extended till further orders on 1.8.1984 (Annexure-4). It is also not in dispute that the petitioner was of regularization brought into regular establishment in 1992. 7. Thus, the facts remain that the petitioner's date of birth being 25.1.1954, he was initially appointed on 7.1.1984 (Annexure-2) which was extended till further orders on 1.8.1984 (Annexure-4). He was granted first time bound promotion on 30.1.1996 with effect from 9.1.1994 (Annexure-5). Here, I would like to point out that this first time bound promotion was not final in the sense that the said order (Annexure-5) itself referred to the fact that if in future it is found that he was ineligible, the same was likely to be withdrawn with recovery of excess money paid. Therefore, the time bound promotion was conditional upon regularity of promotion. On petitioner's service book and other forms duly been forwarded to the Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, his first time bound promotion was duly approved and communicated by Memo dated 17.12.2002 (Annexure-7). First time bound promotion was withdrawn for the reasons stated in (Annexure-C) in the Meeting of the Review Committee dated 29.7.2006 (Annexure-C to the counter affidavit) on the ground that he had not passed Accounts Examination and the same was communicated by the impugned order dated 30.8.2006 as contained in Annexure-1 with consequential direction for recovery of excess money paid. 8. In order to appreciate as to what is understood by time bound promotion, one has to see Government Resolution No 10770 dated 30.12.1981 (Annexure-J to the second supplementary counter affidavit of the State). This is a Government Resolution accepting the recommendations of the 4th Pay Revision Committee. The relevant parts of the said Resolution are quoted hereunder: 11. With regard to time-bound promotion, the Fourth Pay Revision Committee have made the following recommendations:- (1) Personnel management should envisage providing at least two promotions to each and every employee in Government-service, the first by the end of ten years of service and the second by the end of 25 years of service. (ii) If an employee who is otherwise fit for promotion and has not been able to get a single promotion by 10 years of service notwithstanding the fact that a specified percentage of the cadre is already provided in the different levels of promotion inclusive of the selection grade, he should be promoted to the junior selection grade at the end of the ten year. (iii) If an employee, although otherwise found fit for a second promotion, has not been able to secure a second promotion by the 25th year of his service notwithstanding the fact that a specified percentage of the cadre is already provided in the different levels of promotion inclusive of the selection grade, he should be promoted to the senior selection grade at the end of the 25th year. (iv) ... ... .... ....... . .. .. .. .... ... (v) ... .... ..... ..... .. .. .. .. ..... (vi) The other conditions, the rules and procedures meant for usual promotion should be followed in case of the aforesaid time-bound system also. (vii) Since the aforesaid scheme is meant as an anti-stagnation measure. It should be applicable in case of only such employees who have not been able to get the first or the second person, as the case may be. In other words, the benefit of the time-bound system should be extended to those who are stagnating in the same pay scale to which they were appointed or its corresponding revised pay scale. The benefit should not be made applicable to such employees who, after once joining Government service have, for any reason, been elevated to a higher pay scale, by promotion; merger or even up-gradation. This should require issue of specific orders in case of every employee which should obviously be done only after a careful examination of his service records. 9. Apart from others, this was followed by Resolution No. 6021/F(2) dated 18th December, 1989 (Annexure-K to the second supplementary counter affidavit) and relevant part thereof as contained in Clause13 is quoted hereunder: 13. The other conditions, rules and procedures meant for usual promotion shall be followed in case of promotion to selection grade as well as for time-bound promotion. No employee shall be allowed promotion into selection grade or be given time-bound promotion unless he is otherwise fit for promotion. 10. With reference to the aforesaid two Resolutions, on behalf of State, it is submitted that time bound promotion is not automatic on expiry of the periods specified, therein. The Clauses, as quoted above, would show that it is conditioned and dependant upon the person being otherwise fit for promotion. In my view, State is correct in its submission. 10. With reference to the aforesaid two Resolutions, on behalf of State, it is submitted that time bound promotion is not automatic on expiry of the periods specified, therein. The Clauses, as quoted above, would show that it is conditioned and dependant upon the person being otherwise fit for promotion. In my view, State is correct in its submission. A reference to the earlier notification dated 30.12.1981 which introduced the concept of time bound promotion would show that earlier because of restricted promotional avenues, employees suffered stagnation for long periods which was detrimental to work culture and it is to get over this evil that time bound promotion was envisaged. For example, if at the entry level in a cadre, there' were 100 posts in the next promotional level, the post were 40 and in the next there were 20 which makes it like a pyramid then a person would stagnate without finding place in the promotional avenue. Thus, not only would he not get promotion, there would be no promotional pay, increments both of which would work as a disincentive and be detrimental to work culture. It is to overcome this that Time Bound Scheme was introduced where even though the person did not get promotion to a higher post literally, he got enhancement of pay scale of the higher post without actually being promoted. Actual promotion could not be given because of inadequacy of number of posts at promotional level. It is keeping this that the concept of time bound promotion which is a notional promotion was mooted and being a promotion nevertheless a person had to be eligible for promotion. Consequently if before a person could be considered for regular promotion, he had to pass certain departmental examinations then even for the purposes of time bound promotion, he was required to pass those examinations. This is what is sought to be conveyed by use of expression "who is otherwise fit for promotion" repeatedly in the said resolutions. To my mind, this is the true intention of the Government. In my view, considering the Heydon's Rules of Interpretation or what is commonly referred to as the Mischief Rule, the intention is to be found out from the evil that is sought to be remedied. To my mind, this is the true intention of the Government. In my view, considering the Heydon's Rules of Interpretation or what is commonly referred to as the Mischief Rule, the intention is to be found out from the evil that is sought to be remedied. The evil was stagnation and the remedy was notional promotion and if these two things are kept in mind then eligibility for promotion follows as a natural consequence. Even otherwise applying the Golden Rule of Interpretation which is the Literal Rule of Interpretation, the words used in the Resolution are clear and unambiguous. The expression is "who is otherwise found fit for promotion". Therefore, before a person can get either the first or the second time bound promotion, he must be eligible for consideration for a regular promotion which could not be given to him because of lack of number of posts at the promotional avenue. This, of course, subject to the further condition that the person should not have got any other promotion or enhancement of pay scale in the meantime as noticed earlier. 11. In the case of Dinesh Prasad Vs. The Regional Institute of Technology, Jamshedpur & Others since reported in 1994 (1) PLJR 38, S.B. Sinha, J. (as he then was) held that the effect of time bound promotion is only change of scale of pay. It is not a substantive promotion. It is giving effect to pay revision recommendations. In the case of Patna University etc Vs. Awadh Kishore Prasad Yadav & Othets etc. since reported in 1994 (2) PLJR (SC) 11, the Apex Court, while dealing with time bound promotion, held that time bound promotion is different from regular promotion. In paragraph-7 of the reports, their Lordships held as under: 7. It is true that personal promotion under the Time-Bound Promotion Scheme cannot be treated at par with promotion from a lower post to a higher post where not only seniority but even merit has to be examined by a duly constituted Committee or Commission. At the same time, it does not appear from the relevant Statute, that the Committee was required only to examine whether the person concerned is holding a substantive post of Lecturer and has completed at least ten years of continuous service as a Lecturer in one or more Universities..................... At the same time, it does not appear from the relevant Statute, that the Committee was required only to examine whether the person concerned is holding a substantive post of Lecturer and has completed at least ten years of continuous service as a Lecturer in one or more Universities..................... As already said earlier, this exercise by the Screening Committee and the Commission for the purpose of giving time-bound promotion to the lecturers concerned, need not be at par with the process adopted for giving regular promotion on the principle of seniority-cum-merit. At the same time, it should not be an empty formality". 12. This decision of the Apex Court would show that time bound promotion is not automatic on completion of the period but is dependent on other requirements as well. In so far as petitioner is concerned being governed by the Resolutions, as noted above, the other requirement is that he ought to be fit for promotion otherwise. 13. At this stage, I may also refer the judgment in the case of Brijanand Ojha Vs. The Bihar State Housing Board & Others since reported in 2003 (4) PLJR 443 and, in particular, paragraphs-4 and 6 thereof wherein Aftab Alam, J. (as he then was) noticed that for part of the period, there was an exemption from appearing in the examination held by Revenue Board but to my mind that decision has no application to the present case inasmuch as, as noticed in the said judgment itself, the said exemption was cancelled and consequently the petitioner cannot get any benefit from the said decision. 14. At this stage, in fairness to the learned counsel for the petitioner, I may refer to two judgments of Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court being in the cases of Abdul Qayum Ansari Vs. The State of Bihar & Others since reported in 1998 (3) PLJR 902 and Ramjee Prasad Singh Vs. State & Others since reported in 1999 (3) PLJR 648. Both the judgments have been delivered by the same Hon'ble Judge. In the case of Abdul Qayum Ansari (supra), his Lordship has held it to be a well settled principle of law by now that first time bound promotion has to be given to an employee after he/she completes 10 years of service and after completion of 25 years of service, he/she is entitled to second time bound promotion. In the case of Abdul Qayum Ansari (supra), his Lordship has held it to be a well settled principle of law by now that first time bound promotion has to be given to an employee after he/she completes 10 years of service and after completion of 25 years of service, he/she is entitled to second time bound promotion. His Lordship, accordingly, ordered for grant of same notwithstanding the person not passing the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination. Though his Lordship has held it to be a well settled principle of law, his Lordship has neither referred to the Government Resolutions nor to any binding precedent in that regard to hold that passing of the examination was not necessary. As I have shown above, the Government. Resolution provides otherwise. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Patna University etc. (supra) clearly states otherwise. Then in the case of Ramjee Prasad Singh (supra) the Hon'ble Judge has held that this Court has repeatedly held that non-passing of Accounts Examination or Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination will not be ground for refusing time bound promotion. His Lordship has only referred to the earlier judgment in the case of Abdul Qayum Ansari (supra) again without referring to the Statute (Government Resolution) or other decision. In my view, the attention of his Lordship was not drawn to the Government Resolutions which clearly stipulate that a person had to be fit for promotion otherwise which only means that he should be eligible for promotion. If passing of certain examinations is condition precedent for being considered for promotion then a person cannot get time bound promotion merely because he completing the time period without acquiring eligibility. This is what has been noticed by the Apex Court in the judgment of Patna University etc. (supra). To me, it appears that the Government Resolution and the judgment of the Apex Court were not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Judge which, if brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Judge, would have resulted in a different judgment. In my view, these basic facts take away the precendent value of the two judgments aforesaid and it would not be safe for this Court to be bound by the said judgment as a binding precedent. 15. Here, I may refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. In my view, these basic facts take away the precendent value of the two judgments aforesaid and it would not be safe for this Court to be bound by the said judgment as a binding precedent. 15. Here, I may refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Sudhanshu Sekhar Misra & Others since reported in AIR 1968 Supreme Court 647, the relevant part whereof is to be found in paragraph 13 of the said report wherein referring to the famous and often quoted judgment of Earl of Halsbury LC in the case of Quinn Vs. Leathem, 1901 AC 495, the Apex Court held: "The reference to the cadre was merely incidental. A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it. On this topic this is what Earl of Halsbury LC said in Quinn Vs. Leathem, 1901 AC 495. "Now before discussing the case of Allen Vs. Flood, (1898) AC 1 and what was decided therein, there are two observations of a general character which I wish to make, and one is to repeat what I have very often said before, that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but governed and qualified, by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. The other is that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides. I entirely deny that it can be quoted for a proposition that may seem to follow logically from it. Such a mode of reasoning assumes that the law is necessarily a logical Code, whereas every lawyer must acknowledge that the law is not always logical at all." It is not a profitable task to extract a sentence here and there from a judgment and to build upon it." 16. In my view, the said two judgments must be restricted to the facts of those two cases and should not be read as generally laying down the law. In my view, the said two judgments must be restricted to the facts of those two cases and should not be read as generally laying down the law. In this connection, I may refer to a recent judgment of this Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Others since reported in 2007 (Supplement) PLJR 398 wherein brother Ramesh Kumar Datta, J. has categorically held that passing of Departmental Accounts Examination is essential for the purpose of grant of promotion and it would, accordingly, be essential also for the purpose of grant of time bound promotion since the resolution dated 30.12.1981 clearly lays down that the condition regarding promotion ha; to be fulfilled for the said purpose also 18. Thus, in my view, it was essential for the petitioner to have passed Departmental Accounts Examination before he could be considered eligible for promotion and if that be so, the same would equally apply to time bound promotion. Admittedly, petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility/criteria and, thus, was not eligible for promotion and consequently could not be granted the first time bound promotion. Therefore, there cannot be any fault in the authorities correcting the mistake that was committed. 19. Here, I may also refer to the judgment of Full Bench in the case of Maheshwar Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Others since reported in 2000 (4) PLJR 262 . In this case, apparently their Lordships held that after merger of LD and UD Clerks, there was no requirement of passing Accounts Examination but this is qualified in the said judgment itself wherein this position was held to apply between the period 1.5.1980 to 29.03.1982. In the said judgment itself, their Lordships have held that Clerks were required to pass the final examination in Accounts as a condition for promotion to selection grade after 29.3.1982. Thus, exemption from examination was for a limited period. This case has been relied on by both the State and the petitioner. The petitioner sought to canvass that exemption from Accounts Examination was available and the State argued to the contrary. In my view, firstly their Lordships were not dealing with time bound promotion at all. Secondly, their Lordship have categorically carved out period in which exemption was available. Their Lordships have not held as a matter of law that never was passing of Accounts Examination required. In my view, firstly their Lordships were not dealing with time bound promotion at all. Secondly, their Lordship have categorically carved out period in which exemption was available. Their Lordships have not held as a matter of law that never was passing of Accounts Examination required. In my view, the facts of the said case are clearly distinguishable and did not apply to the facts of the present case. 20. It is being aware of this predicament that on behalf of the petitioner, it was then urged that a promotion even though wrongly granted several years back cannot be taken away or withdrawn for which proposition reliance was placed in the case of Narendra Chadha & Others Vs. Union of India & Others since reported in AIR 1986 Supreme Court 638 and in the case of The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation through its Managing Director Vs. Yasoda Devi & Others since reported in 1998 (3) PLJR 331 . In my view, the point is now covered by a recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Another Vs. Narendra Singh since reported in (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 750. In that case, an erroneous promotion was granted. The Administrative Tribunal, noticing that the promotion was erroneous, directed for relaxation. This was disapproved by the Apex Court. The Apex Court, noticing that the erroneous promotion was continuing for more than 17 years, nevertheless held thus in paragraphs-32 and 33, of the reports: 32. It is true that the mistake was of the Department and the respondent was promoted though he was not eligible and qualified. But, we cannot countenance the submission of the respondent that the mistake cannot be corrected. Mistakes are mistakes and they can always be corrected by following due process of law. In ICAR Vs. T.K. Suryanarayan it was held that if erroneous promotion is given by wrongly interpreting the rules, the employer cannot be prevented from applying the rules rightly and in correcting the mistake. It may cause hardship to the employees but a court of law cannot ignore statutory rules. 33. As observed by us, statutory rules provide for passing of departmental examination and the authorities were right in not relaxing the said condition and no fault can be found with the authorities in insisting for the requirement of law. It may cause hardship to the employees but a court of law cannot ignore statutory rules. 33. As observed by us, statutory rules provide for passing of departmental examination and the authorities were right in not relaxing the said condition and no fault can be found with the authorities in insisting for the requirement of law. In the circumstances, the action of the authorities of correcting the mistake cannot be faulted. 21. I may only add that in the present case as also in the case before the Apex Court, as referred to above, there was a fundamental flaw in granting the promotion. Such a fundamental flaw or mistake can always be corrected inasmuch as there cannot be an estoppel against Statute, for where Statute provides that a particular thing has to be done in a particular manner then by necessary implication, it can only be done in that manner and all other manner of doing the thing is impliedly prohibited. Here, passing of Departmental Accounts Examination was a condition precedent for being considered for promotion and the condition precedent not having been satisfied, he was granted time bound promotion which was a fundamental mistake and as held by the Apex Court, as noticed above, the mistake had to be corrected even after 17 years (10 years in the present case). 22. Now coming to the question of the 50 years relaxation rule. The Government Circulars have been annexed to the counter affidavits as Annexures-A and B being Government decisions dated 9.12.1983 and 15.5.1992. These decisions, inter alia, clearly stipulate that non-passing of examination will not debar a person from being considered for promotion if he has crossed the age of 50 years provided he has earlier regularly been sitting in the examinations but not succeeded or if no such examination is held in five preceding years. Therefore, this relaxation is not automatic. In the present case, it is neither pleaded nor submitted that petitioner had ever attempted but failed to pass the Departmental Accounts Examination nor is it pleaded that no such examination was held in the last five years. It is further not pleaded that the petitioner had exercised his option as envisaged in the decision dated 15.5.1992. Thus, in my view, the petitioner is not entitled to any such relaxation. It is further not pleaded that the petitioner had exercised his option as envisaged in the decision dated 15.5.1992. Thus, in my view, the petitioner is not entitled to any such relaxation. My interpretation is consistent with a recent decision of this Court in the case of Bindeshwari Prasad Sharma Vs. State of Bihar & Others since reported in 2007 (Supplement) PLJR 260. 23. Thus, the last question that remains is with regard to recovery. In my view, this issue has to be decided in favour of the petitioner. Admittedly, petitioner played no part in getting the promotion wrongly. Authorities fully applied themselves and took an erroneous view of the matter. The petitioner was given to understand that promotion was duly granted to him and he was entitled to it. He enjoyed the pay and perquisites. Now after more than 10 years, he is being told that I have committed a mistake in granting you promotion and because of that mistake you are now required to make good the losses incurred by State in this regard. In my view, this would be wholly inequitous. A substantial amount of money would be recoverable from the petitioner for no fault of his and the petitioner would be made to suffer for a long time even if installments are fixed for recovery. Petitioner is being made to suffer for fault of another. That surely cannot be permitted. This aspect of the matter has been fully dealt with by a Full Bench of this Court recently in the case of Ram Binod Singh & Others Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board & Others since reported in 2007 (3) PLJR 398 . In the case of Union of India & Another Vs. Narendra Singh (supra), similar issue had arisen. The Apex Court, noticing that the erroneous promotion continued for over 17 years, held and directed that the excess salary already paid would not be directed to be recovered though they held that restoration of the correct pay scale would have to be made but prospectively that is it would have an effect on his pensionary benefit as he was to retire in a few days. In my view, this is the correct position where a mistake is corrected and the mistake was not actuated by the petitioner then rectification thereof is permissible but should normally be done prospectively so as to avoid undue hardship being caused to a person without the person being at fault. 24. In the result, it is held that the order withdrawing first time bound promotion is legal and correct but order directing recovery of money cannot be sustained and is quashed accordingly. 25. The writ application, thus stands partly allowed.