ORDER : Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner, in this writ petition, is challenging the part of the order contained in letter No. 535 dated 10.9.2013 issued by the Conservator of Forests by which, the claim of the petitioner for grant of 2nd Assured Career Progression (for short 'ACP') has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not passed Hindi Noting Drafting Examination. 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner ultimately has completed more than 24 years of service, as such, he is entitled to get the benefit of the 2nd ACP, which has been turned down by the impugned order. He submits that the order is absolutely bad, as it is not necessary for the petitioner to pass the said examination, because he has already completed 50 years. He further submits that as per the Government Circular dated 9.11.1983, as contained in memo No. 11691, a person can be exempted from appearing in the said examination, if he crosses the age of 50 years. He further submits that as per the Bihar Forest Rules, an employee, if crossing 50 years of age, is entitled to get the increments, which has been stopped on failure to pass a compulsory examination. He lastly submits that the chart, at Annexure-7, reflects the name of the petitioner and it has been mentioned that the petitioner has already passed the necessary examination in Hindi. He lastly submits that it was the duty of the respondent authorities to exempt him from passing the Hindi Noting Drafting Examination and thereafter, the respondent authorities were duty bound to grant the petitioner the benefit of the 2nd ACP. The counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submission, is relying upon the judgment passed in the case of Maheshwar Prasad Singh Vs. the State of Jharkhand reported in (2000) 4 PLJR 264. 4. Counsel for the State submits that as per the Rules, the petitioner has to pass Hindi Noting Drafting Examination or else he is not entitled to get any promotion even the benefit of ACP. He submits that the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, claim exemption from the Government. Relying upon the Circular dated 9.11.1983, he submits that it is up to the department to take a decision whether the petitioner, be exempted or not from the said examination. He submits that the petitioner cannot, as a matter of right, claim exemption from the Government. Relying upon the Circular dated 9.11.1983, he submits that it is up to the department to take a decision whether the petitioner, be exempted or not from the said examination. He further submits that the chart, which the petitioner is relying upon, categorically mentioned that the petitioner has not passed Hindi Noting Drafting Examination, therefore, he is not entitled to get the benefit of 2nd ACP. 5. From the records, I find that vide Circular dated 9.11.1983, it has been provided that the order of exemption in appearing/passing of the said examination will be applicable to the employees who have crossed 50 years of age. However, Clause-5 of the said Circular provides that whether an employee be exempted from appearing/passing in the said examination, will be the sole discretion of the employer i.e. the State Government. This means, as a matter of right, an employee cannot claim for exemption from the said examination. Further, it can be understood that a person first has to apply for exemption to get himself exempted from appearing/passing such Hindi Noting Drafting Examination and on such application, an appropriate decision has to be taken by the employer i.e. the State. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is admitted that the petitioner has not passed the said examination. It is also admitted that the petitioner has never applied for exempting him from appearing/passing the said examination. 7. That being so, there is no illegality committed by the respondent authorities in not granting the benefit of 2nd ACP to the petitioner. The judgment, which the petitioner is relying upon, is not applicable in the present case because the same relates to grant of time bound promotion whereas the grant of ACP is a separate scheme. Circular of the Government dated 17.11.2012, which is brought on record by both the parties, clearly mentions, that, to get the benefit of ACP also, an employee has to passed the departmental examination. Thus, there is no illegality in denying the benefit of 2nd ACP. 8. Circular of the Government dated 17.11.2012, which is brought on record by both the parties, clearly mentions, that, to get the benefit of ACP also, an employee has to passed the departmental examination. Thus, there is no illegality in denying the benefit of 2nd ACP. 8. However, if the petitioner applies for exempting him for the said examination in terms of Circular of the Government, the same should be considered sympathetically by the employer and an appropriate order should be passed by the authority, who is empowered to consider the exemption application of the petitioner. If ultimately, the petitioner is exempted from the said examination, his case for grant of ACP should be re-considered and appropriate order should be passed at the earliest. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.