1. Heard Ms. Savita Jain, learned counsel representing the petitioners, and Mr. Mohit Jauhari, learned Standing Counsel representing the contemnor-respondent.
2. This contempt petition has been filed for violation/willful disobedience and defiance of the judgment and order dated 2nd April, 2018 passed in Writ Petition No.9219 (S/S) of 2018 filed by the petitioners.
The aforesaid judgment and order reads as under:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were granted appointment on the post of Constable (Civil Police) and in pursuance thereof they were discharging their duties on the said post. The work and conduct of the petitioners were satisfactory and no complaint whatsoever has been made against them. He further submitted that the petitioners' claimed promotion on the post of Sub-Inspector as per amended Rule 2013 and 2015 and he placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court in bunch of writ petitions, leading petition is Writ-C No. 12735 of 2014 decided vide order dated 28.2.2018.
On the other hand learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submitted that The Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service (Second Amendment) Rule, 2016 has came into existence with certain amendments in regard to the consideration of promotion. Thus, claim of the petitioners does not come within the ambit of the aforesaid rules, 2016 as such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.
In regard to the controversy of promotion the dispute went up to the Supreme Court, on remand the Division Bench of this Court had decided the issue vide judgement dated 28.2.2018 which is at page no. 47 to 50 of the paper book. The Division Bench of this Court has issued direction to the U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board to consider the claim of the petitioners in the said writ petition in the light of existing Rule within the prescribed period. The relevant portion of the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court is being quoted herein below :-
"The third respondent, U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, shall consider the petitioner's claim for promotion as and when they undertake the exercise of promotion to the post of Sub-Inspectors in future, if they are otherwise eligible for the promotion. It is needless to mention that the petitioners will have to clear physical efficiency test as provided in the Rules, as amended in 2013. In other words, the petitioners will have to clear physical efficiency test for promotion on the post of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) as per the relaxed criterion, 2015, as observed by the Supreme Court. It is made clear that, under any circumstances, the petitioners shall not claim notional promotion or any other benefits from any date, earlier to their actual promotion. With these observations, writ petitions are disposed of."
Thus, the submission of learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel can very well examined by the authority concerned, who has been directed to decide the issue involved in the present writ petition.
In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondent no. 3 to consider the claim of the petitioners for promotion as and when they undertake the exercise of promotion to the post of Sub-Inspectors in future, if they are otherwise eligible for the promotion. It is needless to mention that the petitioners will have to clear physical efficiency test as provided in the Rules, as amended in 2013. In other words, the petitioners will have to clear physical efficiency test for promotion on the post of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) as per the relaxed criterion, 2015 and 2016 as observed by the Supreme Court. It is made clear that, under any circumstances, the petitioners shall not claim notional promotion or any other benefits from any date, earlier to their actual promotion.
With these observations, writ petition is disposed of."
3. Pursuant to issuance of the contempt notice, short counter affidavit of Mr. Raj Kumar Vishwakarma, Chairman, U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow has been filed.
Paras 5 and 6 of the said short counter affidavit are reproduced hereunder:-
"5. That the petitioners appeared in the departmental written examination 2011 for the post of ranker sub-Inspector (Civil Police) which was held on 13.03.2011. On being qualified all the petitioners were called for the physical efficiency test in accordance with para 16 of U.P. Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2008, the candidate was expected to finish the 10 Km race within 75 minutes. All the petitioners participated in the said 10 Km race, but they could not complete the race within the stipulated period of 75 minutes, as such all of them were declared to be in-eligible for aforesaid selection.
6. That after perusal of the order dated 04.02.2018, it was found that as per U.P. Police Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules 2013 and 2015 (as amended), the petitioners had not completed three years of services as on the post of Head Constable, therefore, their cases could not be considered for promotion. It is pertinent to mention here that the notification regarding promotion of petitioners has not been received in U.P. Police Recruitment & Promotion Board, Lucknow so far. However, it is submitted that as and when the notification seniority, eligibility and by which rule the promotion is to be done, will be received in the Board, the Board will consider the promotion of the petitioners."
4. It has been further said that the contempt petition against the similar order has been dismissed by this Court vide order dated 05.02.2019 and the order passed in Contempt No.6058 of 2018 has been placed on record as Annexure CA-1 to the said short counter affidavit.
5. Admittedly, the petitioners are not head-constables, but they are seeking promotion from their present post i.e. constable to the pot of sub-inspector. In view of the existing rules, the promotion to the post of sub-inspector is only from the post of head-constable.
6. Since the rules do not permit promotion from the post of constable to the post of sub-inspector, the petitioners are not entitled for promotion to the post of sub-inspector and, therefore, this contempt petition is not maintainable. Further, since the coordinate Bench has already dismissed a contempt petition arising out of identical order, I do not think it proper to continue with the present contempt petition and pass order any further.
7. In view of the above, the contempt petition is dismissed. Contempt notice stands discharged.
[Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.] Order Date :- 26.7.2019 MVS/-