1 2025:CGHC:1015 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CONT No. 670 of 2023 1 - Raviprakash Mishra S/o. Omprakash Mishra Aged About 41 Years Head Constable, Police Station Ramanujganj, District - Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Vivekmani Tiwari S/o Ravindranath Tiwari Aged About 39 Years Head Constable, Police Station Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) 3 - Shipakranjan Sharma S/o Lt. Krishna Ballabha Sharma Aged About 38 Years Head Constable, Police Station Balrampur, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - Shri Arun Deo Gautam Secretary, Home Department (Police), Mantralaya, Mahanadi ]Bhawan, New Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shri Ramgopal Garg Inspector General Of Police, Surguja Range, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) 3 - Shri Lal Ummed Singh Superintendent Of Police, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondents For Petitioners : Mr. Sushil Dubey & Mr. Aman Upadhyaya, Adv. For Respondents : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate. 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi Order on Board 07/01/2025 1. This contempt petition has been preferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for non-compliance of the order dated 25.04.2023 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 68 of 2023 (Raviprakash Mishra & others vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others). 2. This Court has passed the following order in Writ Petition (S) No. 68 of 2023, in paragraphs No. 8 to 10, which reads thus :- “8. From bare perusal of Clause 2A of the SOP, it is quite vivid that candidates should be given two attempts, whereas, the present petitioners were not given second attempt. The respondents have given promotion to the petitioner in Dheeraj Gupta and others vs. State of Chattisgarh and Others1 w.e.f. 25.12.2012 who have cleared Drill Test in the year 2015. The petitioners herein are similarly situated persons. 9. Accordingly, it is directed that the Superintendent of Police shall examine the case of the petitioners and if the case of the petitioners are found similar to the petitioners in Dheeraj Gupta (supra) who have been granted promotion w.e.f. 25.12.2012, the same shall be extended to the petitioners herein within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.” 1 Writ Petition (S) No. 1816 of 2012, decided on 23.04.2013 3 3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant would submit that the applicants and other similarly situated Constables were participated in the examination for promotion from the post of “Constable” to the post of “Head Constable” held on 25.12.2012. In the said examination, only one opportunity was granted to the candidates to participate in Drill Test and the candidates, who could not clear the Drill Test at the first instance, were not given second opportunity to participate in the Drill Test, which ought to have been given as per the provisions contained in SOP No. 23 / 2002 dated 23.10.2002. It is contended that being aggrieved & dissatisfied with the same, some of the Constables had filed writ petition bearing No. 1816 of 2012 {Dheeraj Gupta and Ors. vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others}. Subsequently, the present applicants also filed writ petition bearing No.68 of 2013 {Raviprakash Mishra & others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others}. During pendency of aforesaid writ petitions, on 29.05.2013, petitioners and some other constables were promoted to the post of “Head Constable” after passing due examination including Drill Test. As such, they joined on the post of “Head Constable” in the year 2013 itself. Subsequently, in pursuance of the order dated 23.04.2013 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 1816 of 2012, petitioners, of that writ petition, were granted second opportunity of Drill Test as per the SOP No. 23/02 and, thereafter, they passed the said examination and granted promotion and also granted seniority w.e.f. 25.12.2012 i.e. from the date of first examination, but the present applicants were not granted seniority w.e.f. 25.12.2012, despite the fact that they had amended their relief clause of Writ Petition (S) No. 68 /2013 (Raviprakash Mishra and others vs. The State of Chhattisgarh and others) to this effect. It is further contended that, that writ petition (S) No. 68 /2013 was disposed of by this Court on 25.04.2023 directing respondents authorities to examine the case of present 4 applicants and if the same is found to be similar to the petitioners in Dheeraj Gupta's case (supra), who have been granted promotion w.e.f. 25.12.2012, the same would be extended to the present applicants also. In pursuance thereof, the applicants have filed representation, but the same has been rejected by respondents authorities vide order dated 21.06.2023 (Annexure C-5) on the ground that despite granting opportunity to the applicants, they did not participate in the Drill Test proposed to be held in compliance of the order 23.04.2013 passed in WPS No. 1816 of 2012. Whereas, they could not have been compelled to pass Drill Test, as they have already been promoted on the post of Head Constable in the year 2013 after passing of the examination including Drill Test. It is next contended that since case of the applicants are similar to the case of Dheeraj Gupta & others (supra), despite that respondents have not complied with the order dated 25.04.2023 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 68 of 2013, therefore, case of contempt is made out against the respondents / contemnors. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in pursuance of the order dated 23.04.2013 passed by this Court in WPS No. 1816 /2012 (Dheeraj Gupta and others Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & others), when the present applicants filed an application for grant of seniority w.e.f. 25.12.2012, they were directed to participate in the Drill Test in the year 2023, but they refused to participate in the said Drill test. He further submits that Dheeraj Gupta & others, who were petitioners of W.P. (S) No. 1816 of 2012, had participated in second Drill Test and passed the same in the year 2014, therefore, they were granted promotion & seniority with effect from 25.12.2012. Although the present applicants were promoted in the year 2013, but since their status was not similar to the Dheeraj Gupta and other 5 petitioners of WPS No. 1816 of 2012, who had passed second drill test, therefore, the present applicants have not been granted promotion & seniority w.e.f. 25.12.2012, as such, there is no substance in the contempt petition to proceed further in the matter initiating contempt proceeding against the respondents/contemors, as the order under contempt dated 25.04.2013 has been complied with. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Having considered aforesaid fact that it was directed by this Court vide order under contempt dated 25.04.2023 that if case of the present applicants are found to be similar as of petitioners in Dheeraj Gupta & other’s case, then the present applicants may also be granted promotion with effect from 25.11.2012, but after passing order by this Court in WPS No. 1816 / 2012, Dheeraj Gupta & other petitioners of aforesaid case were participated in the Second Drill Test held in the year 2014 and they get passed the same in light of order of this Court, therefore, they were granted promotion with effect from 25.12.2012, as transaction of second Drill Test was part of initial process issued in the year 2012 for promotion from the post of 'Constable' to the post of 'Head Constable'. But the applicants of instant contempt petition did not participate in that second Drill Test, as they had already promoted to the post of 'Head Constable' in the year 2013. Thus, since applicants of instant case did not participate in second Drill Test, therefore, their case is not similar to the case of Dheeraj Gupta & others (Supra), as there is slight difference between them in respect of participation in second drill test. Though claim of applicants seems to be good, but since case of present applicants are not similar to the case of Dheeraj Gupta & others (Supra), therefore, no case of contempt is made out against the respondents / contemnors 6 7. Accordingly, the contempt case is dropped. Rule issued is discharged. However, present applicants are at liberty to file fresh petition seeking their seniority on the post of “Head Constable” w.e.f. 25.12.2012 in accordance with law, if so advised. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Amit Judge AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.01.14 15:59:33 +0530