AMARESHWAR SAHAY, J. - (1.) THE background of this proceeding is that the contemnor/ opposite party, Babban Ram, filed a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 1744/2002, before this Court, seeking direction to declare him to have been promoted to the post of Sub -Inspector of Police, with effect from 20.8.1994, mainly on the ground that the respondent authorities had no jurisdiction to deny the petitioner the post of Sub -Inspector of Police, when he has already been exonerated from the charges made against him in the departmental proceedings No. 94/91 and 3/95.
(2.) IT is relevant to quote few of the relevant and categorical statement of the petitioner made in the following paragraphs of the writ petition : - '13. That except for the two pending departmental proceedings referred to above, the service record of the petitioner was outstanding. Petitioner had not earned any major punishment nor any adverse entry has been made in his Annual Confidential Reports. 16. That the petitioner was held guilty in both the proceedings. The petitioner filed Departmental Appeal before Deputy Inspector General of Police, both the Appeals filed by the petitioner were allowed and the petitioner was exonerated from the charges made in Departmental proceeding Nos. 94/91 and 3/95. 17. That the Deputy Inspector General of Police by his order dated 31.10.1998 while allowing the appeal also directed that in view of acquittal from the charges the petitioner was entitled to be promoted to the post of Sub -Inspector of Police. 25. That the petitioner submits that the respondents have no jurisdiction to deny the petitioner the post of Sub -Inspector of Police, when the petitioner has been exonerated from the charges made in Departmental proceeding No. 94/91 and 3/95.' Therefore, from the above quoted statements made by the petitioner and grounds taken in the writ petition, it appears that the whole case of the contemnor opposite party regarding his claim for being promoted to the post of Sub -Inspector of Police, is based on the specific statement that he has not earned any major punishment nor any adverse entry has been made in his confidential report and further that he has already been exonerated in the departmental proceedings initiated against him and, therefore, the respondent had no jurisdiction to deny him promotion to the post of Sub -Inspector of Police.
(3.) CONTROVERTING the statements made in the writ petition a counter affidavit was filed by the State duly sworn in by the Superintendent of Police, Chaibasa, i.e. respondent No. 4 in the writ petition.;