JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Shiv Kumar Soni, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. P. Nag, the learned Standing Counsel for the State-Respondent and perused the record.

2. By means of the instant writ-petition the petitioners have challenged the validity of the Uttar Pradesh Police Computer Staff (Non-Gazetted) Service Rules 2011 (hereinafter referred as “the Rules of 2011”) and they have sought issuance of a writ of Mandamus directing the opposite parties to amend the aforesaid Rules to the extent it contains a provision for conducting a departmental examination for making promotions from the post of Computer Operator, Grade-A to the post of Computer Operator Grade-B.

3. The petitioners have contended that in several other Rules governing promotions of the Government Employees, there is no provision for conducting an examination, as is there in Rule 17 of the Rules of 2011.

4. Rule 18 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Department Electronic Data Processing (Grade-C) Cadre Service Rules 2016, which contains the procedure for recruitment by promotion for the post of Computer Operator, Grade-B and Computer Operator, Grade-C, and Rule 17 of the U.P. Constable and Head Constable Service Rules 2015, which contains the provision for promotion to the post of Head Constable, and Rule 17 of the U.P. Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Services Rules 2015, which contains provision for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector, do not contain any provision for conducting an examination for making promotions.

5. It has further been stated in the writ petition that the U.P. Police Radio Subordinate Service Rules 2015, U.P. Police Ministerial Accounts and Confidential Assistants Cadre Service Rules 2015 and the U.P. Pradeshik Armed Constabulary Subordinate Officers Service Rules 2015 also do not contain any provision for conducting written examination for making promotions.

6. It has been stated in the writ petition that in reply to a letter seeking information under the Right to Information Act 2005, U.P. Police Computer Center has given information that the procedure for making amendments to the Rules of 2011, for replacing the departmental examination with seniority, is pending before the Government.

7. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, Shiv Kumar Soni, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since no other Rule lays down a requirement for conducting a written-examination for making promotions, the requirement of conducting a written-examination contained in Rule 17 of the aforesaid Rules 2011, is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

8. In support of his contention, he has relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Pravin Sinh Inrasinh Mahida v. State of Gujrat, 2021 SCC Online Guj. 1293, wherein it was held that: -

“74(13) It is, thus, beyond any pale of doubt that the justiciability of particular Notification can be tested on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14, which is treated as basic feature of the Constitution, ensures equality before the law or equal protection of laws. Equal protection means the right to equal treatment in similar circumstances, both in the privileges conferred and in the liabilities imposed. Therefore, if the two persons or two sets of persons are similarly situated / placed, they have to be treated equally. At the same time, the principle of equality does not mean that every law must have universal application for all persons who are not by nature, attainment or circumstances in the same position. It would mean that the State has the power to classify persons for legitimate purposes. The legislature is competent to exercise its discretion and make classification. Thus, every classification is in some degree likely to produce some inequality but mere production of inequality is not enough. Article 14 would be treated as violated only when equal protection is denied even when the two persons belong to same class/c