ORDER : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. 1. The appellant is aggrieved of the order dated 30.08.2017. By this order the writ petition seeking a declaration that the petitioner, who is appellant now, was entitled for promotion to the post of Judicial Commissioner's Sheristedar with effect from 01.08.2005 has been dismissed. 2. Two fold contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant; (i) grant of 2nd ACP, that is, the pay-scale of Rs. 5,500-9,000/-is not a substitute to the claim of the appellant for promotion to the post of Sheristedar, and (ii) the respondents cannot take shelter to their own latches in not conducting the Sheristedar's examination to decline promotion to the appellant. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decision in “State of Maharashtra Vs. Jagannath Achyut Karandikar” reported in 1989 Suppl. (1) SCC 393, to fortify the above contentions. 4. Briefly stated, the appellant who was appointed as a Clerk in the Civil Court, Ranchi on 15.12.1969 was promoted in the Junior Selection Grade on 25.02.1985 and he was granted Senior Selection Grade on 16.02.1990. Before he superannuated from service on 31.08.2007, he was given benefits of 1st and 2nd ACP on account of which after his superannuation on 23.06.2008 his pay-scale was revised to Rs 5,500-9,000/-. He has claimed that he has passed Hindi Noting and Drafting examination, Departmental examination and the Proficiency test which was held on 29.01.1984. Before he was given additional charge of Incharge Sheristedar, Civil Court, Ranchi on 29.07.2005, he was transferred to the post of Sheristedar, Civil Court, Khunti. By that time, he was promoted as Head-Clerk. He has claimed promotion to the post of Sheristedar of the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi on the basis of his seniority and experience as Incharge Sheristedar. However, the Screening Committee constituted by the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi for assessing eligibility of the candidates for promotion to the post of Sheristedar did not find any of the five candidates who were within the zone of consideration eligible for promotion. The appellant made representations and pursuant to a direction of the High Court, communicated to the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi through the Registrar-General, High Court of Jharkhand his claim was re-examined, but again rejected. 5. The learned Single Judge has held as under : 5. The appellant made representations and pursuant to a direction of the High Court, communicated to the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi through the Registrar-General, High Court of Jharkhand his claim was re-examined, but again rejected. 5. The learned Single Judge has held as under : 5. “From perusal of the record, it appears that consequent upon transfer of the then Sheristedar, Civil Courts, Ranchi to Garhwa vide memo dated 18.7.2005 and taking into account that the Head Clerk (the petitioner) is doing the work of Judicial Commissioner’s Sheristedar in addition of his own duties, the Registrar, Civil Courts, Ranchi vide Office Note dated 28.06.2006 placed the name of five senior most assistants for Selection of Sheristedar of Judicial Commissioner before Judicial Commissioner for referring the matter to Screening Committee. Pursuant thereto, a meeting was held on 17.07.2006, in which, after going through the relevant service book and PCRs of the five incumbents to be considered by the committee, it was found that none of them has passed the Sheristedar test as prescribed by the High Court, which is essential qualification for promotion to the post of Sheristedar as envisaged in Rule 65 of the Civil Court Rules. Accordingly, it was unanimously resolved that in absence of such essential qualification of passing the Sheristedar test, this committee feels that as none of the five candidates is fit to be promoted hence none of them should be promoted to the post of Sheristedar. 6. On perusal of record, it further appears that thereafter the petitioner represented before the Judicial Commissioner vide letter dated 21.04.2007 enumerating all the points, which was placed before appointment committee, who vide its meeting dated 27.06.2007 unanimously resolved that resolution of Screening Committee dated 17.7.2006 will prevail. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner represented before Registrar General, High Court of Jharkhand praying therein “to consider his case of promotion on the post of JC’s Sheristedar in the pay-scale of 5500-9000/-”, which was remitted to Judicial Commissioner to decide the matter in the light of the facts disclosed in the aforesaid representation. However, on remitting, when the matter was placed before the screening committee it met with the same fate confirming the order passed in its earlier meeting. From bare perusal of his prayer made before learned Registrar General, it appears that petitioner sought promotion on the said post in the pay-scale of 5500-9000/-, admittedly on the said pay-scale he was working. However, on remitting, when the matter was placed before the screening committee it met with the same fate confirming the order passed in its earlier meeting. From bare perusal of his prayer made before learned Registrar General, it appears that petitioner sought promotion on the said post in the pay-scale of 5500-9000/-, admittedly on the said pay-scale he was working. Hence, the only grievance remains to be decided by the screening committee in second round with regard to promotion of the petitioner, on which, it has already given a specific finding that since the petitioner along with other incumbents have not passed the required examination, their case cannot be considered. Here, it would be out to place mention that it is not a case where other employee juniors to him have been given promotion and further the stand of the petitioner that it is the department itself who did not conduct examination and for this petitioner cannot be blamed, does not leg to stand as it is settled principle of law that promotion cannot be claimed as right and even otherwise also he has been given monetary benefit and no junior to him has been promoted so as to make a case of hostile discrimination or eroding of his status. Even otherwise also, the petitioner has superannuated on 31.08.2007 much before filing of writ petition, hence, the question of monetary benefit only remains, which the petitioner is getting. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, the writ petition, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed.” 6. Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class-III and Class-IV) Rules, 1992 govern the procedure for promotion to the post of Sheristedar of the District Judge. Rule 6 provides classes and categories of employees in the Civil Courts; under Class-III there are five category of employees. Sheristedar of the District Judge falls under Category-1 and Head Clerk of the District Judge, Accountant, Head Comparing Clerk, Record Keeper, Nazir, Sheristedar of the permanent Subordinate Judge, Sheristedar of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (as the case may be), Sheristedar of the other Subordinate and other Judges posted in the District/Subdivision including additional Subordinate Judges and Sheristedar of permanent Munsif are under Category-2. 7. Under Rule 60, a Typist before he is promoted to the Junior Selection Grade must pass another test of typing. Details of typing speed etc. 7. Under Rule 60, a Typist before he is promoted to the Junior Selection Grade must pass another test of typing. Details of typing speed etc. are mentioned under Rule 60. Eligibility for promotion of a Clerk is laid down under Rule 62. It provides that a Clerk before he is promoted to the Junior Selection Grade must pass the following examinations; (a) Civil Court and Criminal Court rules framed by the High Court; (b) Accountancy; (c) Knowledge of drafting of correspondence and order sheets; and (d) Practices and procedure. 8. Promotion in Super-time Scale to a Clerk is granted who has passed the examination as prescribed under the Civil Court Rules, Criminal Court Rules, Account Rules, Stamp Act, Court Fee, Stamp and Suit Valuation Act. Rule 64 makes an exception in case no suitable person is available for promotion in Super-time Scale. It provides that in such contingency the appointing-authority may fill-up the post by direct recruitment, however, subject to prior concurrence of the High Court. Qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Super-time Scale has been prescribed under Rule 64. 9. Rule 65, which is the relevant provision for the purpose of the present case, provides as under: 65. No person shall be eligible for promotion to the posts specified hereto below unless he possesses the qualifications prescribed hereinbelow (i) Sheristadar of the District Judge must pass a Sheristedar's test as prescribed by the High Court; (ii) Head Clerk of the District Judge must pass a Sheristadar's test as prescribed by the High Court; (iii) Sheristadar of any other Court and Accountant must pass the tests prescribed therefor by the High Court. 10. By now it is well-settled that a candidate who lacks the essential qualification for appointment/promotion is not eligible and appointment/promotion, if any, given to such a candidate is void [refer, “Bihar Public Service Commission and others Vs. Kamini and others” reported in (2007) 5 SCC 519 ]. 11. Rule 65 provides that no person shall be eligible for promotion to the post of Sheristedar of the District Judge, who has not passed the Sheristedar's test as prescribed by the High Court. The expression “no person” and “must” occurring under Rule 65(i) clearly indicate that qualification to pass Sheristedar's test is an essential condition for promotion to the post of Sheristedar of the District Judge. The expression “no person” and “must” occurring under Rule 65(i) clearly indicate that qualification to pass Sheristedar's test is an essential condition for promotion to the post of Sheristedar of the District Judge. There is no dispute that the appellant does not possess this essential qualification. Experience as Incharge Sheristedar is of no avail to him. The experience acquired by the appellant while working as Incharge Sheristedar is not a substitute for the essential qualification as prescribed under Rule 65 of 1992 Rules. The plea taken by the appellant that the respondents cannot take benefits of their own latches, in view of the specific stipulation under Rule 65, must fail. Before he came to this Court in W.P.(S) No. 979 of 2008, the appellant had already superannuated from service w.e.f 31.08.2007. During his entire service period, he never raised a grievance why the Sheristedar's test was not conducted. 12. The judgment in “Jagannath Achyut Karandikar” has been rendered in peculiar set of circumstances, in which over looking the claim of a senior juniors were promoted and subsequently relaxation in the conditions for grant of seniority to the seniors in the cadre for “late passing” was declined. It was in these circumstances that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the applicant cannot be denied seniority viz-a-viz his juniors on the ground that he has not passed departmental examination which was not conducted by the department in time. 13. It is true that promotion is a legal right of an appointee and sometimes it is referred to as the constitutional right of an employee [refer, “Union of India and another Vs. Hemraj Singh Chauhan and others” reported in (2010) 4 SCC 290 ] and the stand taken by the respondents that the appellant has already been granted maximum pay-scale of Rs. 5,500-9,000/-and therefore it would not make any difference if he is not promoted to the post of Sheristedar of the District Judge is not correct, however, in view of lack of essential qualification the appellant has rightly not been granted promotion. 14. 5,500-9,000/-and therefore it would not make any difference if he is not promoted to the post of Sheristedar of the District Judge is not correct, however, in view of lack of essential qualification the appellant has rightly not been granted promotion. 14. On the claim of the appellant that other similarly situated persons who have not passed the Sheristedar's examination but granted promotion, suffice it would be to indicate that the appellant, who does not possess the essential qualification for promotion to the post of Sheristedar, cannot claim parity with others who may have been granted promotion wrongly or under different circumstances [refer, “Haryana State Electricity Board and another Vs. Gulshan Lal and others” reported in (2009) 12 SCC 231 ]. 15. Viewed thus and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, we find no ground to interfere in this matter and, accordingly, L.P.A. No. 537 of 2017 is dismissed.