ORDER U.B. Saha, J. 1. The instant writ petition is filed by the Petitioner, Sri Anil Chakraborty, an U.D. Clerk, who was not promoted to the post of Head Clerk/Accountant on the ground that he did not complete Accounts cum Administrative Training, as required under the relevant Recruitment Rules of Head Clerk/Accountant, for a direction to the Respondents to promote him to the post of Head Clerk/Accountant with effect from the date of promotion of his juniors i.e. Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 and also to quash the order of promotion of the Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 to the post of Head Clerk vide order dated 23.03.2010 (Annexure-H to the writ petition) along with other prayers. 2. Pleaded facts of the case of the writ Petitioner, in short, are as follows : The writ Petitioner was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk under the District Administration, Govt. of Tripura, on 24.04.1979 and was promoted to the post of Upper Division Clerk on 18.08.2003. While working as UDC, he was also assigned to work as In-charge Head Clerk vide Office Memorandum dated 11.12.2006 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) and till filing of the writ petition, he was working as In-charge Head Clerk in the Office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Teliamura. Recently, he has been transferred as In-charge Head Clerk to the Office of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Agartala. 3. As per the provisions of Recruitment Rules for promotion to the post of Head Clerk/Accountant, feeder post is UDC with at least 5 years experience in the grade and the Accounts training conducted by the State Government is required. For undergoing Accounts training as required under the Recruitment Rules, the State Government also framed a Rule, namely, the Tripura Accounts Cum Administrative Training Rules,1998 ( for short 'the Rules,1998' ). In the said Rules,1998, it is indicated that these Rules are applied to the post of UDC, which is held by the Petitioner for getting promotion to the post of Head Clerk/Accountant as shown under Rule 3(iii) of the Rules,1998. It is also provided under Rule 11 of the Rules,1998, that promotion from the feeder grade cannot be given till the examination is passed after successful completion of Accounts training. There is a note appended to Rule 11 of the Rules,1998, from which it appears that the requirement of passing the qualified Accounts training would not apply in case of temporary promotion. There is a note appended to Rule 11 of the Rules,1998, from which it appears that the requirement of passing the qualified Accounts training would not apply in case of temporary promotion. Under Rule 9 of the Rules,1998, the rule making authority prescribed the procedure for selection of trainees, wherein it is stated that the selection of trainees shall be on the basis of seniority and an individual Department of the Government shall prepare a panel of trainees on the basis of seniority and sponsor the names of trainees as and when requested by the Finance Department. In the aforesaid Rules also, there is an exemption clause as evident from Rule 10 of the Rules,1998. Rule 10 is reproduced hereunder as that would be a beneficial one for coming to a proper decision: 10. Exemption: a) The following categories of Govt. servants shall be exempted from the examination: i) Government servants who have passed the SAS examination of Indian Audit and Accounts Department; ii) Qualified Divisional Accountants (i.e. those who have passed the Divisional Accounts' Examination and posted as such by the Accountant General to various Public Works Divisions); iii) Government servants who have duly passed the Accounts Training examination conducted earlier by the Accountant General, Assam/Tripura; iv) An employee for whom successful completion of the training under these Rules is obligatory may be exempted from the operation of these Rules on his/her attaining the age of 55 yrs. If he could not avail of or successfully completed the Training under these Rules. v) Under any special circumstances the Governor may exempt any Government servant from these examination. b) The employees who are exempted under Sub-rule (a) of this Rule shall have all benefits under these Rules except that provided for under Sub-rule (a) of Rule 11. 4. The writ Petitioner, in paragraph-6 of his petition, specifically stated that, his name was proposed by the SDM, Teliamura for the 14th Sessions of Tripura Accounts cum Administrative Course, 2007 at Sl. No. 1 of the list of candidates and the Petitioner was willing to join the said training course, but the Respondent No. 2 did not allow the Petitioner to undergo such training without any reason and due to non-sending of his name for the said training, he was prevented by the State-Respondents from availing the opportunity of Accounts training in the 14th Sessions. In the 15th Sessions of the aforesaid Accounts training also, the name of the Petitioner was not sent and he was never asked by the authority, rather the name of his juniors i.e. Respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 7 were proposed and sent for such training. As a result, he was again prevented by the State-Respondents from getting the said Accounts training and to complete the same, which is one of the condition for getting promotion from the post of UDC to the post of Head Clerk/Accountant. Meanwhile, the Petitioner has attained the age of 55 years. Further case of the Petitioner is that, the Petitioner is senior to the private Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 and the Respondent-authority failed to comply with the provisions of the Rule 9 of the Rules,1998, wherein it is specifically stated that the selection of trainees shall be on the basis of seniority. The writ Petitioner also stated that 45 employees were promoted to the post of Head Clerk/Accountant without Accounts cum Administrative training and 41 employees were promoted, who attained 55 years of age during the period 2000-2009, but the case of the writ Petitioner was not considered for promotion to the post of Head Clerk/Accountant, though he fulfilled the criteria prescribed in the Rules,1998. Being aggrieved by the discriminatory action of the State-Respondents, the Petitioner filed the instant writ petition, seeking relief as stated supra. 5. The State-Respondents as well as the other private Respondents have filed their respective counters, wherein they denied the allegations of the writ Petitioner. 6. The State-Respondents, in their counter-affidavit, took the plea that though the name of the Petitioner was proposed by the SDM, Teliamura, for the 14th Sessions of the Accounts cum Administrative Training, as the Petitioner was willing to join the said course, but the name of the Petitioner was not recommended to the Finance Department though the said proposal was received by the Respondent No. 2 i.e. the District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura from the SDM, Teliamura, on 31.05.2007 and the Establishment Section of the Office of the District Magistrate & Collector, West Tripura, received the same on 01.06.2007 and the name of the other incumbents, who had expressed their willingness to join the aforesaid training were sent on 01.06.2007 as the Finance Department directed to send their names latest by 25.05.2007. It is also stated in the counter-affidavit of the State-Respondents that the employees who are made parties as Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 in the writ petition, were selected and underwent the said training in the 14th Session, on the strength of their willingness. 7. In paragraph-18 of counter, the State-Respondents also pleaded, inter alia, that the DPC selected the private Respondents for promotion to the post of Head Clerk/Accountant and accordingly, they were appointed to the post of Head Clerk/Accountant on promotion. The real fact is that the DPC meeting held on 16.02.2008 examined the matter and provision of passing of Accounts Training as made in the Recruitment Rules in relation to the vacancy position of Head Clerk/Accountant and it was observed that the number of trainees selected for the training is very inadequate in comparison to the vacancy. More so the training was not held in every year and when held, in maximum occasions, one or two persons were selected from the Department for such training. Therefore, it is quite impossible to get 64 Nos. of trained employees against 64 vacancies. The DPC further observed that sometime due to excessive pressure of work, the Administrative Department could not release the employees concerned for training and the DPC felt that some of the employees had rendered even 33 years of satisfactory service under the Administration but they are not getting promotion to the post of Head Clerk/Accountant for want of Accounts training and some already retired from the post of UDC. After careful consideration of the fact, the DPC strongly recommended for relaxation/exemption of Accounts Training in favour of the concerned employees considering the total period of service rendered by them under the Administration, who had completed minimum 5 years of service in the grade of UDC and in the said list of the concerned employees, the name of the Petitioner appeared at Sl. No. 57 with recommendation for promotion to the post of Head Clerk, relaxing the condition of Accounts training. 8. The private Respondents, in their respective counters, raised their voice, inter alia, that, admittedly they were juniors to the Petitioner, but they were promoted as they fulfilled the conditions of the Recruitment Rules and also completed the Accounts cum Administrative training. 9. Mr. 8. The private Respondents, in their respective counters, raised their voice, inter alia, that, admittedly they were juniors to the Petitioner, but they were promoted as they fulfilled the conditions of the Recruitment Rules and also completed the Accounts cum Administrative training. 9. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, while urging for the relief sought for, would contend that a person can't be denied his right for consideration of his promotion for no fault of him. In the instant case, the SDM, Teliamura, sent the name of the Petitioner for Accounts cum Administrative training and the same was received by the Respondent No. 2 on 31.05.2007 i.e., one day ahead of sending the names of others to the Finance Department. From the aforesaid facts it is evident that the action of the Respondent No. 2 is totally unfair and unreasonable and also violates the provisions of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. He further urges that the Respondent No. 2 ought not to have sent the names of Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 prior to the Petitioner, as the requirement of Rule 9 of the Rules,1998, inter alia, is that the selection of trainees should be on the basis of seniority. Mr. Chakraborty further submits that the name of Smti Krishna Chakraborty, as mentioned in paragraph-12 of the State-counter, who is junior to the Petitioner, was sent in the 14th Session course depriving the present Petitioner. He further submits that the Petitioner completed the requisite qualification of 5 years in the feeder post and that his name was also proposed by the SDM, Teliamura for the 14th Session of Accounts cum Administrative training in the year 2007, but for no fault on his part, his name was excluded by the Respondent No. 2 on the ground that the proposal for sending the name of the Petitioner was not received in time, though it appears from the record that the same was received by the Respondent No. 2 on 31.05.2007. It is not clear, why the Respondent No. 2, knowing fully well the instruction of the Finance Department, sent the said proposal to the Establishment Section, which was received by the said Section on 01.06.2007, without sending the same to the Finance Department directly. 10. It is not clear, why the Respondent No. 2, knowing fully well the instruction of the Finance Department, sent the said proposal to the Establishment Section, which was received by the said Section on 01.06.2007, without sending the same to the Finance Department directly. 10. The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner further submits that from para-12 of the State-counter, it is evident that the names of other incumbents who expressed their willingness like the Petitioner to undergo the 14th Sessions of Accounts cum Administrative training, had been sent on 01.06.2007 to the Finance Department, Govt. of Tripura i.e. after a day of receipt of the proposal for sending the name of the Petitioner for the 14th Sessions of Accounts cum Administrative training from the SDM, Teliamura, meaning thereby, till 01.06.2007, there was a scope to send the name of the Petitioner. He further contends that the Petitioner has by this time completed 55 years of age and come within the zone of exemption clause i.e. Sub-rule (iv) and (v) of Rule 10 of the Rules,1998, which provides an employee for whom successful completion of training under these Rules is obligatory may be exempted from the operation of these Rules on his/her attaining the age of 55 years, if he could not avail of or successfully completed the training under these Rules and under any special circumstances the Governor may exempt any Government servant from these examinations. In the instant case, the special circumstance is that though the Petitioner was willing to join the Accounts cum Administrative training as required under the Rules, but for the failure of the State-Respondents, he could not get opportunity to avail the said Accounts cum Administrative training and complete the same. Therefore, it is a fit case where the authority should promote the Petitioner temporarily to the post of Head Clerk/Accountant by way of exempting him from the Accounts cum Administrative Training. 11. Mrs. Sharma Lodh, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, while countering the contention of Mr. Therefore, it is a fit case where the authority should promote the Petitioner temporarily to the post of Head Clerk/Accountant by way of exempting him from the Accounts cum Administrative Training. 11. Mrs. Sharma Lodh, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, while countering the contention of Mr. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contended that as the SDM, Teliamura, did not propose the name of the Petitioner within the stipulated period prescribed, the Respondent No. 2 could not send the same to the Finance Department in time and as a result of which the Petitioner could not complete the Accounts cum Administrative Training as required for promotion to the post of Head Clerk/Accountant though he completed 5 years of service in the feeder post. She further submitted that the DPC again and again requested the authority to relax the condition of Accounts training in favour of those employees, who had rendered services in the feeder post for 5 years. She also fairly submitted that the name of the Petitioner was considered by the DPC and his name was appeared at Sl. No. 57 with a recommendation for promotion, which would be evident from paragraph-18 of the counter-affidavit. 12. Mr. B. Datta, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos. 3,5,6 and 7, would contend that admittedly the Respondents are junior to the Petitioner but they were promoted by the appropriate authority as they completed the Accounts training, which is sine qua non for promotion to the post of Head Clerk/Accountant. Mr. D.C. Saha, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 4 also echoed in the same line. 13. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and upon going through the pleadings of the parties as well as the documents annexed therewith, this Court is of the considered opinion that a person can't be punished for no fault of him. In the instant case, it is admitted position that the Petitioner expressed his willingness for the Accounts cum Administrative training. Not only that he is also senior to the Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 in the feeder grade of UDC and completed 5 years of service in the said grade. In the instant case, it is admitted position that the Petitioner expressed his willingness for the Accounts cum Administrative training. Not only that he is also senior to the Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 in the feeder grade of UDC and completed 5 years of service in the said grade. It would be evident that an employee in the feeder post who attained the age of 55 years, is exempted from the Accounts cum Administrative Training, particularly as provided under Sub-rule (iv) of Rule 10 of the Rules,1998, wherein it is specifically stated that an employee for whom successful completion of the training under these Rules is obligatory may be exempted from the operation of these Rules on his/her attaining the age of 55 years, if he could not avail of or successfully completed the training under these Rules. In the instant case, the Petitioner could not avail of or successfully complete the aforesaid training for the fault of the Respondents as they even not sent the name of the Petitioner either in the 14th Session or 15th Session of Accounts cum Administrative Training while they sent the name of his juniors, violating the provisions of Rule 9 of the Rules,1998 and as such the action of the Respondent-authority is violative of the prescription made in Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, the authority should have exempted him from successful completion of that training as required under the Rules. 14. In the writ petition, though the Petitioner asked for quashing the promotion of the private Respondents herein, but that would not be proper for this Court to quash their promotion as they have been promoted after completion of the Accounts cum Administrative training under the Rules, 1998, but the authority should consider the case of the Petitioner from the date when the private Respondents were promoted and if the Petitioner is found suitable and qualified, then he should be promoted to the post of Head Clerk/Accountant so that his seniority in the promotion post can be maintained. When the case of the Petitioner for promotion would be considered then the authority would also take note of Sub-rule (v) of Rule 10 of the Rules,1998, wherein it is specifically stated that under any special circumstances, the Governor may exempt any Government servant from these examinations. When the case of the Petitioner for promotion would be considered then the authority would also take note of Sub-rule (v) of Rule 10 of the Rules,1998, wherein it is specifically stated that under any special circumstances, the Governor may exempt any Government servant from these examinations. By this time, it is settled that, when a discretion is conferred upon the executive authority, the same has to be exercised in a fair and reasonable manner. In the Rules,1998, though certain discretionary power was given to the Governor for exempting a Government servant from appearing in the Accounts cum Administrative Training, but what would be the special circumstances that has not been defined, meaning thereby that the Rule making authority has empowered the Governor to exercise his unlimited discretion considering the facts and circumstances of a particular case of an employee concerned. 15. Though facts are not similar, but a similar question came up before a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 231 of 2008, wherein this Court, while disposing the same, noted, inter alia, that a note is appended to Rule 11 of the Tripura Accounts cum Administrative Training Rules,1998, which however provides that the requirement of passing qualifying Accounts training would not apply in case of temporary promotions and wherein it is also noted that "it is not in doubt that selection for training and training itself, is to be imparted by the authorities and it is only for the default of the Government authorities, the Petitioner has been deprived of acquiring the qualification of accounts training. Since the 1998 Rules provide for granting temporary promotion, I am of the view that to mitigate the hardship caused to the Petitioner by the default of the Respondents authorities, it would be appropriate to direct consideration of the case of the Petitioner for temporary promotion by disregarding his lack of accounts training, if he has otherwise fulfilled the requirements for getting such promotion." 16. Since, it appears from the counter of the State-Respondents that the DPC also suggested for promotion to the post of Head Clerk/Accountant even without completion of the Accounts cum Administrative Training, it would be proper for the authority to anxiously consider the same and come to a decision regarding that aspect. Since, it appears from the counter of the State-Respondents that the DPC also suggested for promotion to the post of Head Clerk/Accountant even without completion of the Accounts cum Administrative Training, it would be proper for the authority to anxiously consider the same and come to a decision regarding that aspect. There is no doubt, the writ court has unlimited power to reach wherever injustice causes, but at the same time it is also the duty of the Court not to encroach the power of any constitutional authority as well as executive authority unless those authority acted unfairly or unreasonably and contrary to the provisions of any law including the constitutional provisions. As in the instant case, it appears from record that even without fault of the Petitioner he was deprived from appearing in the Accounts cum Administrative training consequent thereto he has been deprived from promotion to the next higher post of Head Clerk/Accountant, thus the action of the Respondent-authority is nothing but injustice to the Petitioner. 17. In view of the above, the State-Respondents are directed to consider the case of the Petitioner for temporary promotion to the post of Head Clerk/Accountant even in absence of his completion of Accounts cum Administrative Training, from the date of consideration of his juniors i.e. Respondent Nos. 3 to 7 to the post of Head Clerk/Accountant, within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of this order. 18. With the above observations and directions, the instant writ petition is closed.