Yashwant Varma, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
(2.) Learned counsel for parties are ad idem that this petition would merit disposal in light of the order passed in Service Single No. 15201 of 2018 (Mahendra Pratap Singh And Ors. Vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy./Chief Secy. And Ors). The said petition was disposed of in the following terms:- "Heard Sri Anuj Dayal, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Chief Standing counsel appeared on behalf of the respondents. 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. 73 to 77 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, in case all the petitioners have applied in pursuance to the advertisement and have been issued admit cards. 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.) Accordingly and with the consent of parties, this petition shall also stand disposed of on similar terms.;