ORDER : Seeking quashing of orders dated 08.01.2014 and 18.03.2014, whereby the benefit of 1st ACP has been denied to the petitioner, the instant writ-petition has been filed. 2. Heard. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grounds for recalling benefit of 1st ACP to the petitioner, that the petitioner passed the Accounts examination only on 26.08.2011 is erroneous inasmuch as, the only condition for grant of benefit under the A.C.P scheme is completion of the stipulated length of service, which in the instant case is 12 years. It is contended that no other condition except, the one prescribed under the Government Notification dated 14.08.2002 can be imposed by the Executive. 4. The petitioner, who was appointed as Assistant in the year 1995, is working under Vairdh Yojna, Daltonganj. It appears that his claim for grant of A.C.P was considered by the Department and a recommendation was made by the Screening Committee in its meeting held on 26.10.2013. The matter was sent for approval of the Commissioner, however, on the ground that the petitioner cleared the Departmental/ Accounts Examination only on 26.08.2011, the Commissioner declined to approve the recommendation of the Screening Committee and accordingly, Office Order dated 18.03.2014 was issued intimating the petitioner that the previous order dated 13.11.2013 whereunder he was granted the pay-scale of Rs.9300-34800-4200/-upon grant of 1st A.C.P has been recalled. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have taken a specific stand that recommendation of the Screening Committee is not binding and only after such recommendation is approved by the Commissioner, the same is given effect to. No doubt, the petitioner completed 12 years of service on 26.12.2007, however, he was required to pass the Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination and Accounts Examination. He passed Hindi Noting and Drafting Examination on 23.06.2003, whereas he cleared Accounts Examination only on 26.08.2011. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents has contended that length of qualifying service is not the only condition for grant of A.C.P rather, it is dependent on several other conditions. One of the conditions is that the employee is not facing any departmental enquiry and he has passed the departmental examination. 5. The learned counsel for the respondents has contended that length of qualifying service is not the only condition for grant of A.C.P rather, it is dependent on several other conditions. One of the conditions is that the employee is not facing any departmental enquiry and he has passed the departmental examination. In view of the specific stand taken by the respondents the contention that, since the petitioner has completed 12 years of qualifying service which is allegedly the only condition for grant of benefit under the A.C.P scheme and thus entitled for grant of such benefit, is held misconceived. The materials brought on record do not establish the claim of the petitioner for grant of 1st A.C.P prior to the date on which he cleared the Departmental/ Accounts Examination. Another plea taken by the petitioner is that 2 other persons namely, Ashish Kr. Das Gupta and Aruneshwar Ram have been granted benefit of 1st A.C.P in the year 2002-03 itself though, they passed the Accounts Examination in the year 2005 and 2010, respectively. The learned State counsel has pointed out that grant of benefits under A.C.P and M.A.C.P schemes to the above-named 2 persons is under enquiry. The fact that the petitioner appeared in the Accounts Examination and he was declared qualified on 26.08.2011 and the plea taken by him in Paragraph-9 of the writ petition that 2 other persons have been granted benefit under the A.C.P and M.A.C.P schemes from a date prior to the date they passed the Accounts Examination, go to show that passing of Accounts Examination is mandatory and only from the date of passing of the Accounts Examination, entitlement for grant under A.C.P or M.A.C.P schemes would accrue. The benefits granted to the above-named 2 persons would not clothe the petitioner with a right to claim benefit of 1st A.C.P de-hors the conditions under A.C.P. scheme. 6. In view of the above, I find no merit in the writ-petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.