JUDGEMENT 1. I.A. No. 6680 of 2007 has been filed for substitution of original petitioner who died on 19.8.2007. The names of the legal heirs have been indicated in paragraphs of the application. This introductory application is allowed. Let the legal heirs be substituted in place of original petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 3. Annexure-2 dated 2nd September, 2005 passed by the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms has been challenged in the present writ application. This order has been passed in the light of the direction issued by the High Court in CWJC No. 10321 of 1999 which is Annexure-1 to the writ application. 4. The short facts are that earlier the original petitioner approached the High Court seeking a direction upon the respondents that he be given the benefit of first and second time bound promotion since he had rendered ten years and twenty five years of service respectively after he entered in service by virtue of 20th Competitive Examination on the post of Sub-Deputy Collector. 7he reason which emerged at that point of time for non- grant of said benefit was so-called non- passing of the departmental examination. 5. After hearing the counsel for the parties the Court, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the claim of the petitioner disposed of that writ application with liberty to petitioner to approach the respondents who would consider the case in the light of prevalent circular in existence, 6. Now a speaking order contained in Annexure-2 has been passed rejecting the claim for promotion of orlginai petitioner and therefore the present writ application. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after reaching, the age of 50 years the employee in question- had right of exemption from passing the departmental examination, it was incumbent or duty cast upon the respondents to grant him waiver from appearing in the examination and that he had made an application in this regard which was not property considered. 8. The State has brought on record the said circular as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner was made to place the circular tc reappreciate his stand in the correct prospective. 8. The State has brought on record the said circular as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner was made to place the circular tc reappreciate his stand in the correct prospective. This circular does not make it mandatory for the State to grant exemption as a matter of course merely because an employee had reached the age of 50 years. There are many its and buts stated in the said circular. Only when all those conditions are fulfilled the employer may grant an exemption against appearing and passing of the departmental examination. 9. The Secretary has considered the case history of the original petitioner. Details of the attempts made at passing the examination has also taken note of. In addition to that there is reflection that the petitioner has earned punishment during his service. The claim for exemption cannot be granted on the set of facts which the petitioner is claiming. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that the punishment which was recorded against the erstwhile employee was misplaced kind of punishment because it was not him but the Najir who was responsible for temporary defalcation and the same cannot be attributed to him. 11. The Court is very clear in its mind that validity of Annexure-2 has to be looked into as it is. The respondents have categorically recorded the factual positions which emerge from the service book of the erstwhile petitioner. If the facts which are otherwise not incorrect and are not disputed then this Court has no hesitation in recording that the petitioner did not fulfill all parameters and requisites for demanding exemption from passing the departmental examination as a matter of right. Since the reasons for rejection contained in Annexure-2 are cogent and valid, no case is made out for interference in the same or overriding the same. 12. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed.