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. 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/category Therefore, the person challenging the act of the State as violative of Article 14 has to show that there is no reasonable basis for the differentiation between the two classes created by the State. Article 14 prohibits class legislation and not reasonable classification. (Emphasis Supplied) 9. Article 14 prohibits class legislation and not reasonable classification. (Emphasis Supplied) 9. Per contra, Sri V. P. Nag, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that all the aforesaid Rules referred by the petitioners deal with promotion to separate and distinct posts and the Government has framed separate Rules keeping into consideration the peculiar circumstances relating to each set of posts. He has submitted that the provisions contained in any specific Rules governing promotions to any of the other posts cannot be treated as a yardstick for laying down the procedure for making promotions to the post in question. In support of his contention, Sri. Nag has placed reliance upon the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Subramanian Swami versus Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and another, (2014) 8 SCC 682 , Public Services Tribunal bar Association versus State of U.P., (2003) 4 SCC 104 and State of A.P. and others versus Mcdowell & Co. and others, (1996) 3 SCC 709 . 10. In State of A.P. v. McDowell & Co., (1996) 3 SCC 709 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: - “43. …The power of Parliament or for that matter, the State Legislatures is restricted in two ways. A law made by Parliament or the legislature can be struck down by courts on two grounds and two grounds alone, viz., (1) lack of legislative competence and (2) violation of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed in Part III of the Constitution or of any other constitutional provision. There is no third ground………by whatever name it is characterised, the ground of invalidation must fall within the four corners of the two grounds mentioned above. In other words, say, if an enactment is challenged as violative of Article 14, it can be struck down only if it is found that it is violative of the equality clause/equal protection clause enshrined therein. Similarly, if an enactment is challenged as violative of any of the fundamental rights guaranteed by clauses (a) to (g) of Article 19(1), it can be struck down only if it is found not saved by any of the clauses (2) to (6) of Article 19 and so on. No enactment can be struck down by just saying that it is arbitrary or unreasonable. Some or other constitutional infirmity has to be found before invalidating an Act. No enactment can be struck down by just saying that it is arbitrary or unreasonable. Some or other constitutional infirmity has to be found before invalidating an Act. An enactment cannot be struck down on the ground that court thinks it unjustified. Parliament and the legislatures, composed as they are of the representatives of the people, are supposed to know and be aware of the needs of the people and what is good and bad for them. The court cannot sit in judgment over their wisdom.” 11. In Public Services Tribunal Bar Assn. v. State of U.P., (2003) 4 SCC 104 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated the aforesaid principles. Again, in Subramanian Swamy v. CBI, (2014) 8 SCC 682 , in Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: - “49. Where there is challenge to the constitutional validity of a law enacted by the legislature, the Court must keep in view that there is always a presumption of constitutionality of an enactment, and a clear transgression of constitutional principles must be shown. The fundamental nature and importance of the legislative process needs to be recognised by the Court and due regard and deference must be accorded to the legislative process. Where the legislation is sought to be challenged as being unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, the Court must remind itself to the principles relating to the applicability of Article 14 in relation to invalidation of legislation. The two dimensions of Article 14 in its application to legislation and rendering legislation invalid are now well recognised and these are: (i) discrimination, based on an impermissible or invalid classification, and (ii) excessive delegation of powers; conferment of uncanalised and unguided powers on the executive, whether in the form of delegated legislation or by way of conferment of authority to pass administrative orders—if such conferment is without any guidance, control or checks, it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court also needs to be mindful that a legislation does not become unconstitutional merely because there is another view or because another method may be considered to be as good or even more effective, like any issue of social, or even economic policy. It is well settled that the courts do not substitute their views on what the policy is. * * * 58. It is well settled that the courts do not substitute their views on what the policy is. * * * 58. The Constitution permits the State to determine, by the process of classification, what should be regarded as a class for purposes of legislation and in relation to law enacted on a particular subject. There is bound to be some degree of inequality when there is segregation of one class from the other. However, such segregation must be rational and not artificial or evasive. In other words, the classification must not only be based on some qualities or characteristics, which are to be found in all persons grouped together and not in others who are left out but those qualities or characteristics must have a reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. Differentia which is the basis of classification must be sound and must have reasonable relation to the object of the legislation. If the object itself is discriminatory, then explanation that classification is reasonable having rational relation to the object sought to be achieved is immaterial. * * * 96….Moreover, where challenge is laid to the constitutionality of a legislation on the bedrock or touchstone of classification, it has to be determined in each case by applying well-settled two tests: (i) that classification is founded on intelligible differentia, and (ii) that differentia has a rational relation with the object sought to be achieved by the legislation. Each case has to be examined independently in the context of Article 14 and not by applying any general rule.” (Emphasis supplied) 12. In Shayara Bano v. Union of India, (2017) 9 SCC 1 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “a statutory provision can be struck down on the ground of manifest arbitrariness, when the provision is capricious, irrational and/or without adequate determining principle, as also if it is excessive or disproportionate.” 13. The general principles of law explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases, will also apply to the matters involving a challenge to subordinate legislations, including the U.P. Police Computer Staff (Non-Gazetted) Service Rules, 2011. The general principles of law explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases, will also apply to the matters involving a challenge to subordinate legislations, including the U.P. Police Computer Staff (Non-Gazetted) Service Rules, 2011. In light of the law referred to above, we have to examine whether the contention of the petitioners that Rule 17 of the Rules of 2011 is ultra vires to the extent it contains a provision for holding a departmental examination for making promotions from Computer Operators Grade A to Computer Operators Grade B. 14. Rule 17 of the aforesaid Rules of 2011 is being reproduced below for ready reference: “Rule 17. Procedure for recruitment through promotion-Procedure for recruitment of Computer Operator Grade-B by promotion. (1) Promotion of Computer Operator Grade-A to Computer Operator Grade-B will be done on the basis of the departmental examination conducted by the Selection Committee constituted by the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow. (2) Written examination shall be of objective type. Examination shall be of total 200 marks. The written examination paper shall consist of questions related to General Knowledge, Mental Ability, Reasoning and Computer Science. The level of question paper shall be according to the level of minimum required educational qualification for the post of Computer Operator Grade-A (3) Minimum 40 per cent marks are must in the written examination. The candidates who are unable to get 40 per cent marks in the written examination will not be eligible for promotion. (4) Marks on the basis of service records shall be of 50 marks and shall be awarded to each candidate which will be as follows: (a) the maximum marks for the length of service shall be 10. (Maximum 10 marks). (b) the maximum 5 marks for the graduation and above educational qualification and 5 marks for the Technical Computer Course in addition to the educational qualification. (Maximum 10 marks). (c) 3 marks for training (training should be for the minimum period of 3 days or above) subject to maximum 15 marks. (Maximum 15 marks). (d) 15 marks for Annual Remark. (Maximum 15 marks). For every major punishment 3 marks, for every minor punishment 2 marks and for every adverse entry and petty punishment 1 mark shall be deducted. For this purpose the service record of last 10 years shall be taken into consideration. (Maximum 15 marks). (d) 15 marks for Annual Remark. (Maximum 15 marks). For every major punishment 3 marks, for every minor punishment 2 marks and for every adverse entry and petty punishment 1 mark shall be deducted. For this purpose the service record of last 10 years shall be taken into consideration. The service records shall also be examined keeping in view whether the candidate has been punished for such type of punishment which renders him unsuitable for promotion. Any candidate whose integrity was withheld even once, within the last five years shall not be eligible for promotion. (5) The Board after due consideration of the norms specified in Rule 6 prepare a list of successful candidates in order of merit as disclosed by the aggregate of marks obtained by them in the written examination and service records and forward the same to the Appointing Authority.” 15. The aforesaid Rules have been framed by the Government in exercise of statutory powers conferred by Section 46 (2) (c) read with Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861, with a view to regulating recruitment and the conditions of service of persons of the Uttar Pradesh Police Computer Staff (Non-Gazetted) Service, which has been declared to be a part of the police force under the provisions of the Police Act vide Government Order dated 26.09.2011. 16. The petitioners have contended the aforesaid Rules to be ultra vires and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India on the ground that in U.P. Police Radiio Subordinate Service Rules 2015, U.P. Police Ministerial, Accounts and Confidential Assistants Cadre Service Rules 2015 and in U.P. Pradeshik Armed Constabulary Subordinate Officers Service Rules 2015 do not contain any provision for holding departmental examination for making promotions and, therefore, Rule 17 of the Rules 2011, so far as it contains a provision for holding a departmental examination for making promotions is ultra vires the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 17. All the aforesaid Rules referred by the petitioner deal with the service conditions of employees, which form a particular class of the employees and all the classes of employees are different and distinct from each other. No other rule contains a provision for making promotions of the persons who may be said to be belonging to a class similar to the class of Grade-A Computer Operaters in U.P. Police. No other rule contains a provision for making promotions of the persons who may be said to be belonging to a class similar to the class of Grade-A Computer Operaters in U.P. Police. The Computer Operators perform duties, which are technical in nature and which require special skills in computer operation. If the Government has decided to hold a written examination for making promotions of Computer Operators, Grade-A to Computer Operators, Grade-B, for ascertaining suitability of the candidates, it cannot be said that the decision to hold a written-examination has no reasonable nexus to the objective sought to be achieved. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the validity of the Rules also on the ground that the State Government itself is contemplating amendment in the procedure for making promotion of Computer Operators, Grade-A to Computer Operators, Grade-B by departmental seniority, instead of conducting a departmental examination. The State Government was well within its authority to make the Rules and it has the authority to make amendments in the Rules. Merely because the State Government is contemplating to make amendments in the Rule, the Rules cannot be declared ultra vires. 19. So far as the prayer made by the petitioners seeking a writ of Mandamus for directing the State to amend Rule 17 of the Rules of 2011 is concerned, suffice it to say that the State Government has already framed Rules governing the field. The State has acted within its competence in framing the Rules. The Rules are not ultra vires any provision of the constitution of India and this Court has no reason to interfere in the Rules. However, the State is well within its authority to make amendments to the Rule and even if the State is contemplating making any such amendment(s), the court cannot issue a Mandamus to the State to make amendment in the Rules. 20. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.