- (1.) B. S. Chauhan, J. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners claiming promotion on the posts of Sanitary Supervisor. According to the petitioners they were acquainted as Assistant Sanitary Inspectors long time back and the main reliefs sought in the writ petition read as under: (1 ). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to promote the petitioners over the post of Safai Nayak (Sanitary Supervisor ). (2 ). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to disturb the petitioners to work on the post of Sahayak Safai Nayak till their promotion to the post of Safai Nayak.
(2.) THE writ petition was filed on 28-2-1995. and this Court issued notice to the respondents and directed them to file the counter affidavit to the writ petition. Again on 1-9-95 this Court passed the following order: "shri N. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents was granted time to file counter affidavit on 28-2-1995. No counter af fidavit has been filed. THE petitioners have filed a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 to promote the petitioners to the post of Safai Nayak (Sanitary Supervisor ). It is question of fact as to whether the petitioners are entitled, according to seniority and qualification, to be ap pointed on the said post. THE petitioners may represent their case alongwith Government Order before the respondent No. 1. In case the petitioners make any representation, as stated above, the respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the same by means of speaking order within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. " The matter was again listed on 9-5-96 and by that time the respondents herein failed to file the counter affidavit or dispose of the representation of the petitioners and thus this Court passed the following order: "despite ample opportunity having been provided to the respondents for filing counter affidavit, no counter affidavit has been filed. Shri Nripendra Misra, counsel for the respondents despite service is not present in the Court. Sup plementary affidavit has been filed today which was duly served on the respondents on 20-12-95 to which no reply has been filed. It has been alleged in the affidavit that the certified copy of the order dated 1 -9-95 was served on 27-9-95 in the office of respondent No. 1 alongwitn the Government Order and the representation but instead of deciding representation of the. petitioners as per directions made by the Court, respondent No. 1 has promoted other persons in back date (show ing 22-7-95) whereas, no orders for promotion of the petitioner has been passed as per the averments made in the supplementary affidavit which have not been controverted despite service of notice on the respondents. Allegations made, make out a case of Con tempt of Court. Respondent No. 1 Mukhya Nagar Adhikari, Nagar Nigam, Varanasi is accordingly directed to appear in this Court personally on 10-7-1996 to show cause as to why he should not be punished for contempt of Court which is punishable under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In the meantime, he shall immediately pass orders within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order regarding promotion of the petitioners in the light of directions already made in its order dated 1-9-95. It may also be mentioned here that at the time of hearing none had appeared for the respondents as is evident from the order of that date. The respondents decided the representation on 18-5-96 as directed by this Court on 1-9-95 and 9-5-96. The claim of petitioner No. 2 was rejected. (Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit ). The respondents filed the counter affidavit to the main peti tion on 10-7-96. The facts mentioned in the counter affidavit are eye opener. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner No. 1 had already been promoted as Sanitary Supervisor from the post of As sistant Sanitary Supervisor vide order dated 22-7-95 and the petitioners did not bring this fact to the notice of this Court when the orders dated 1-9-95 and 9-5-96 were passed. Regarding the case of petitioner No. 2, it has been stated that the petitioner had never been appointed by the respondents in any capacity what so ever.
(3.) THE petitioner No. 2 had filed suit No. 866/1988 before the Civil Court, Varanasi with the same prayer and the said suit was ex-parte decreed on 17-4-93. How ever, in execution of the said decree the accounts of the respondents-Nagar Nigam was attached. When the Nagar Nigam ap plied for the vacation of that order, the Civil Court passed an order on 2-2-94 to the effect that the said ex-parte decree and the order of attachment shall be recalled only if the respondents promote the petitioner No. 2 on the post of Sanitary Supervisor by com pleting all the formalities within 15 days of the said order. THE learned III Additional Muhsif, Varanasi asked the respondents to give an undertaking in the Court to that effect. THE said order dated 2-02-94 has been placed on record by the petitioner No. 2 himself. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of the Civil Court, the respon dents approached this Court by filing a writ petition No. 8977 of 1994 in which the order of attachment etc. was vacated by this Court vide order dated 22-3-94 (Annexure 8 to the counter affidavit ).;