HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 228 of 2024 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. 1. Heard Shri Mohit Jauhari, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Shri R.P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Earlier order dated 25.09.2024 is quoted herein-below :- "Heard Shri Mohit Jauhari, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants and Shri R.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent. This is an appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 against the judgment and order dated 11.09.2024 passed in Contempt Application No. 2633 of 2024. By means of the impunged order, the contempt judge has rejected the affidavit of compliance and has ordered for posting the contempt proceedings on 26.09.2024 for the purposes of framing of charge against the appellants herein. The contention of the State Counsel is that only direction of the writ Court was to consider the case of the respondent petitioner herein for opening his sealed envelope in terms of Paragraph 10 of the Government Order dated 28.05.1997 and appropriate orders be passed for providing him promotion as per the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee for the selection year 2018. In pursuance thereof, the appointing authority who is the Deputy Inspector General of Police Establishment, U.P., Lucknow took a decision on 09.09.2024 in terms of Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent(s) : R.P. Singh Shri Sanjay Singhal And 2 Others .....Appellant(s) Gulab Singh .....Respondent(s) Paragraph 10 of the Government Order dated 28.05.1997, recommending not to open the sealed cover, as also, that he did not find any necessity for ad-hoc promotion of the respondent herein, therefore, the compliance had been made and the Contempt Court should not have rejected the affidavit of compliance and in rejecting the affidavit of compliance, it has encroached upon the merits of the matter, which in fact were never decided by the writ Court. Learned Counsel for the respondent opposes the appeal and invites our attention to the order dated 05.02.2024 passed by the writ Court, as also, to Paragraph 10 of the Government Order dated 28.05.1997 to contend that instead of considering the parameters mentioned in Paragraph 10, the appointing authority has been persuaded by the earlier recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, wherein, though the respondent was found fit but an observation was made, as informed by Shri Jauhari during course of hearing, that it will be given effect after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings whereas ad-hoc promotion under Paragraph 10 is an exception to the general rule where sealed cover procedure is adopted. We find merit in the contention of the Counsel for the respondent. The recommendation of the D.P.C. in the earlier years was that the respondent is suitable but this recommendation should be given effect after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings against him, rightly so, but this recommendation will not apply while considering the claim for ad-hoc promotion under Paragraph 10, as that is an exception to the general Rule mentioned in the G.O. dated 25.05.1997. Therefore apparently, the consideration on 09.09.2024 was not in accordance with letter and spirit of the order dated 05.02.2024. However, taking into consideration that subsequently the appointing authority has referred the matter to the Promotional Board for its consideration, we are of the opinion that one opportunity shall be given to the Promotional Board to take a decision in terms of Paragraph 10 of G.O. dated 28.05.1997 and thereafter to the appellant appointing authoirty to take a call thereon objectively, keeping in mind the letter and spirit of the order dated 05.02.2024, uninfluenced by the fact that the respondent has initiated contempt proceedings wherein certain orders has been passed against SPLA No. 228 of 2024 2 him. We expect a fair consideration by both the Board and the appointing authority. We keep these proceedings pending for the said purpose. Let the Board take a decision within a period of two weeks. It shall send its recommendation to the appellant appointing authority within the said period and the appointing authority shall take a fresh decision within the next one week i.e. one week of receipt of such recommendation. This appeal shall now come up before this Court on 21.10.2024 as fresh. The contempt proceedings shall stand deferred till then. " 3. In response to our order dated 25.09.2024, a fresh decision has been taken as was ordered and the same has been brought on record along with an affidavit dated 18.10.2024. In view of this, the respondent, if aggrieved, can assail the said decision before the appropriate forum. So far as contempt proceedings are concerned, the same need not proceed any further as the order of the writ court has been substantially complied. The contempt proceedings are accordingly dropped. 4. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid terms. October 30, 2025 Arnima SPLA No. 228 of 2024 3 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench