ORDER 1. Heard Mr. Sujeet Kumar Sinha for the appellant and Mr. Satish Chandra Jha for the respondents. 2. This Appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna arises out of order dated 6th May 2010, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in CWJC No.996 of 1996 (Rajib Ranjan Sinha Vrs. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited and others), whereby the writ petition has been dismissed, and it has been held that the writ petitioner (the appellant herein) is not entitled to be considered for appointment as Development Officer. 3. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of the appeal may be indicated. The appellant was appointed as trainee marketing agent by the respondent Company by communication dated 13.4.1988. The training was to continue for two years during which period he was entitled to ex-gratia stipend of Rs.400/- per month. After successful completion of training he was to be confirmed as a marketing agent. Paragraph 12 of the communication is relevant in the present context and is reproduced herein below :- “12. On satisfactorily undergoing full training as envisaged in para 2 above, you will be awarded certificate of proficiency testifying to your competence as a General Insurance Agent. Normal agency commission for such business promptly canvassed and introduced by you may be applicable thereafter, and you shall be governed by the provisions of the Agency Code in force from time to time. Company, however, may consider offering you appointment as Development Officer on probation in due course of time subject to your passing the Licentiate/Development Officers Examination. (Emphasis added) 3.1 The Marketing Agents are appointed under the Regulations of the Company. Regulation 2 (II) reads as follows :- “With a view to develop rural and other non-traditional classes of business and personal insurances, it has been decided to have a special field force of marketing Agents” Regulation 7 held out the prospect to such Marketing Agents that they shall, subject to fulfillment of certain conditions, be offered appointment as Development Officers. Regulation 7 is reproduced hereinbelow :- “The Marketing Agents shall have no right for permanent absorption in the Industry. Regulation 7 is reproduced hereinbelow :- “The Marketing Agents shall have no right for permanent absorption in the Industry. However, those whose business is comparable with that of Development Officers may be offered appointment as Development Officers (on probation) in due course, subject to their passing Licentiate/Development Officers Examination.” After his selection as trainee marketing agent, the appellant joined as such and efficiently functioned for a period of two years. The appellant passed the Licentiate/Development Officers Examination on 19th December, 1988. It further appears from the inter-departmental communication dated 8th July 1990 that “Sri Sinha was assigned target for only two years which he successfully completed. He also passed the Licentiate Examination”. The petitioner expected to be considered for appointment as Development Officer. He was, however, not considered for the same leading to the writ petition. The same has been rejected on the ground that “neither appointment letter, nor the Rules provides for appointment on the post of Development Officer. Hence this appeal at the instance of the writ petitioner. 4. While assailing the validity of the order passed by the learned single Judge, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the same is unsustainable in law, inasmuch as it completely misreads the order of appointment as well as the Regulations. He next submits that he was had legitimate expectation of being considered for appointment as Development Officer. He relies on the following reported judgments:- (i) LIC of India and another Vrs. Consumer Education & Research Centre and others. ( AIR 1995 SC 1811 ). (ii) Punjab Communications Ltd., Vrs. Union of India and others ( AIR 1999 SC 1801 ). (iii) Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and another Vrs.Status Spinning Mills Limited and Another (AIR 2008 SC 2828 Para 37). 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the order of the learned single Judge. He submits that the Regulations under which the appellant was appointed has undergone a fundamental change in the year 1989, and, therefore, the case of the appellant was never considered. 6. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. We have reproduced hereinabove the relevant portions of the appointment letter as well as the Regulations. 6. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. We have reproduced hereinabove the relevant portions of the appointment letter as well as the Regulations. Clause 7 of the Regulations is to the effect that those of the Marketing Agents whose business is comparable with that of Development Officers may be offered appointment as Development Officer in due course subject to their passing Licentiate/Development Officers Examination. This has to be read with paragraph 12 of the letter of appointment set out hereinabove. It is thus evident from the Regulations, read with the letter of appointment, that the appellant on fulfillment of the conditions indicated therein shall be considered for appointment as Development Officer. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned counsel for the appellant is right in his submission that the learned single Judge has committed an error of record by stating as following in the order dismissing the writ petition:- “In the case in hand neither in the advertisement nor in the appointment letter any positive statement has been made by the Company that Company shall consider the case of the Commission Agents including petitioner for appointment on the post of Development Officer and there being no provision in the rules for considering the Commission Agent for appointment on the post of Development Officer, I am not in a position to direct the Company to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Development Officer.” 7. It further appears to us on the basis of the materials placed before us that the appellant had performed well during the period of two years as Marketing Agent, and his business was comparable with that of Development Officers. He had also successfully passed the Licentiate/Development Officers Examination. In such situation, the respondent Company was bound in law to consider the appellant’s case for appointment to the post of Development Officer soon after he had completed two years from the date of appointment as marketing agent. 8. In the result, we disagree with the order of the learned single Judge. The writ petition as well as this appeal are allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the appellant’s case for appointment as Development Officer as on the date of successful completion of two years as marketing agent, as per the prescribed procedure. 8. In the result, we disagree with the order of the learned single Judge. The writ petition as well as this appeal are allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the appellant’s case for appointment as Development Officer as on the date of successful completion of two years as marketing agent, as per the prescribed procedure. He shall be entitled to all consequential benefits from the date he is found suitable for appointment as Development Officer. In the circumstances of the case, we do not pass any order for costs.