JUDGMENT : 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 placed 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 "M.P.S.") 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-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. 3. 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 party Nos. 2 and 3 is guilty of contempt. 4. I have already quoted the order of this Court passed in the writ petition. The only direction was to decide the representation Annexure-10 to the writ petition. 2 and 3 is guilty of contempt. 4. I have already quoted the order of this Court passed in the writ petition. The only direction was to decide the representation Annexure-10 to the writ petition. The copy of the said representation, Annexure-10 to the writ petition was not filed along with the contempt petition. However, it has been filed with the rejoinder-affidavit dated 24.3.2003 as Annexure-R.A.-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 the 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 "C.A.S."). It has, therefore, contended that there is no compliance of the order of this Court passed in the writ petition. 5. I have heard Sri Shailendra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and V.K. Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the opposite parties at length and have perused the record. 6. It appears that absolutely no controversy was decided in the writ petition. The only direction was to decide the representation, Annexure-10 to the writ petition. What was representation was not at all considered in the writ petition. According to the rejoinder-affidavit dated 24.3.2003, the said representation is Annexure-1 of that affidavit and is for promotion under Merit Promotion Scheme, 1986. It was not decided in the writ petition whether the Merit Promotion Scheme, 1986, in which the promotion has been claimed is applicable to the Petitioner, nor there is direction that the promotion of the Petitioner should be considered in Merit Promotion Scheme, 1986. 7. The affidavit filed by the opposite party No. 2, who is Registrar of the university dated 31.3.2003 is very material. He has mentioned in the affidavit that as a condition of the implementation of 5th Central Pay Commission report revising the pay scales in the university w.e.f. 1.1.1996, the Merit Promotion Scheme, 1986, was abolished by University Grant Commission w.e.f. 27.7.1998 and for personal promotion of the teachers like that of the Petitioner under Merit Promotion Scheme, 1986, which stood abolished w.e.f. 27.7.1998, a new promotion scheme, namely, Career Advancement Scheme was introduced by the University Grant Commission by letter dated 24.12.1998. 8. 8. In view of this averments in the counter-affidavit of opposite party No. 2, the Petitioner prima facie is not entitled to be considered for promotion under Merit Promotion Scheme, 1986. There is no finding of this Court in the writ petition that Merit Promotion Scheme, 1986, is still applicable to the Petitioner and he is entitled to be considered for promotion under the said scheme. Therefore, non-consideration of the promotion of the Petitioner under the said scheme does not amount to contempt of the order of this Court. His promotion was considered in the Career Advancement Scheme and he was not found eligible under the said scheme. 9. It is further contended by the opposite party No. 5 that there was certain confusion regarding the various orders issued by the University Grant Commission. That clarification has been asked from the University Grant Commission regarding which letter has also been written to the University Grant Commission by the Vice-Chancellor of the University. It has further been mentioned in the order deciding the representation that the promotion of the Petitioner shall be considered as and when he becomes eligible and the matter is clarified by the University Grant Commission. 10. Though lengthy arguments have been advanced before me in this case, but I do not think it is necessary to meet all the arguments. In this case, I am not required to consider whether the Petitioner is entitled to the promotion under Merit Promotion Scheme, 1986 and whether his representation has been correctly decided or not. It is not proper to record a finding that the representation has not been correctly decided and then to punish the opposite parties. The direction of the Court was only to decide the representation. The representation has been decided with the direction that the Petitioner is not entitled to the promotion under Merit Promotion Scheme, 1986, as the same has been abolished and he was also not found eligible for promotion under Career Advancement Scheme. 11. This contempt petition is also not maintainable against the Vice-Chancellor and Registrar of the university for the reason that the direction in the writ petition was to the authority concerned to decide the representation. The authority concerned is the Executive Council and not the Registrar or Vice-Chancellor of the University. 11. This contempt petition is also not maintainable against the Vice-Chancellor and Registrar of the university for the reason that the direction in the writ petition was to the authority concerned to decide the representation. The authority concerned is the Executive Council and not the Registrar or Vice-Chancellor of the University. The order was, therefore, not to be complied with by them and they have not committed any disobedience of the order of this Court. 12. If the Petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the Executive Council of the University and still feels that Merit Promotion Scheme, 1986 is still applicable to him, he may file a fresh writ petition for clear direction as to which scheme is applicable to him and from which date he is entitled to the promotion. 13. I do not find any ground to punish the opposite parties for contempt. The petition for contempt is accordingly dismissed.