B.K.RATHI,J. - (1.) THE petitioner, Dr. R.N. Singh, who no doubt is highly qualified person was appointed as temporary Lecturer in the department of chemistry in Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi w.e.f. 31.8.1979. He was given substantive appointment w.e.f. 21.12.1981 and was confirmed on 1.4.1983. He was pleased in senior scale w.e.f. 1.1.1986 by resolution of Executive Council of the University dated 17.10.1989. The petitioner applied for further promotion as Professor and Reader in Merit Promotion Scheme (In short "MPS") by letter dated 13.2.2001. The same was not granted and therefore, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 21250 of 2001. The writ petition was disposed of finally on 25.5.2001 and the following order was passed: "Heard, This petition is disposed of with the direction to the authority concerned to decide the petitioner's representation dated 13.3.2001 (Annexure-No. 10 to the writ petition) preferably within eight weeks from the date of the production of the certified copy of this order in accordance with law."
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that his representation has not been decided and therefore, he filed the present contempt petition, on which the notices were issued. Various counter and rejoinder affidavits were submitted. Ultimately Prof. P. Ramchandra Rao, the present Vice-Chancellor of the University was impleaded as opposite party No. He has filed his own counter affidavit alleging that the representation of the petitioner has been decided on 9.1.2003, in the meeting of the Executive Council. The copy of the decision has also been annexed with the counter affidavit. The delay in taking the decision has been explained and has been deeply regretted by the opposite party No. 3. Therefore, it is not proper to punish the opposite party for contempt for not taking decision within the period allowed by this Court. 3. It need not be said that the decision has gone against the petitioner. Therefore, the contention of Sri Shailendra, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that it has not been correctly decided and is not in terms of the order of the Division Bench of this Court passed in the writ petition, therefore, the opposite parties nos. 2 and 3 is guilty of contempt.
(3.) I have already quoted the order of this Court passed in the writ petition. That only direction was to decide the representation, Annexure-No. 10 to the writ petition. The copy of the said representation, Annexure-No. 10 to the writ petitioner was not filed along with the contempt petition. However, it has been filed with the rejoinder affidavit dated 24.3.2003 as Annexure-No. RA-1. In this representation request has been made for consideration of promotion under Merit Promotion Scheme, 1986. It has been argued by Sri Shailendra that the decision filed by that opposite party No. 3 show that the promotion of the petitioner was not considered under Merit Promotion Scheme, 1986. It was considered under Career Advancement Scheme (In Short "CAS"). It has, therefore, contended that there is not compliance of the. order of this Court passed in the writ petition.';