Departmental examination rules treated non-appearance as a lost chance; termination upheld after all permissible attempts were exhausted.

An employee appointed subject to passing a departmental examination within three years and three attempts could validly be removed for failure to clear the test. Non-application or non-appearance for the first examination was treated under the governing circulars as a lost chance, and the employee could not avoid that consequence by alleging lack of notice where the instructions had wide publicity. After failing in the second and third attempts, he received one further discretionary chance, which he also failed. The Tribunal erred in ignoring the first lost chance and in counting only three attempts; the permissible chances were exhausted, and the termination was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent had failed to clear the departmental examination within the prescribed three attempts so as to justify termination of service under the applicable examination rules.

Analysis: The respondent was appointed on the clear condition that he would be liable to removal if he did not pass the departmental examination within three years and three attempts. The examination for the first year was conducted later, and the governing circulars and instructions treated non-application or non-appearance as a lost chance. The respondent did not apply for the first examination and could not avoid the consequence by contending lack of notice, as the instructions were given wide publicity. He thereafter failed in the second and third attempts and was granted one further chance only at the discretion of the competent authority, which he also failed to clear. The Tribunal erred in treating the first chance as unavailable and in holding that only three chances had been taken.

Conclusion: The respondent had in fact exhausted the permissible chances and the termination was valid. The writ petition was therefore liable to succeed.

---