36 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 8674/2007 Y.S.SENGAR Petitioner Through ; Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Adv. versus MCD & ORS Respondents Through : Mr. Amit K. Paul, Adv. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI ORDER % 23.11.2007 The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 26"^ June, 2007 passed by the Assistant Commissioner (Establishment) of the respondent/MCD,whereunder it was held that the petitioner does not merit entitlement for assignment of look after charge to the post of AssistantEngineer(Civil)as there is pendency of a policecase against the him. Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted against the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) with all consequential benefits. A perusal of the impugned order shows that it does not deal with the issue of promotionofthe petitionerand has only dealt with the representation made by the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 27^"^ April, 2007 passed in WP(C) No.3029/2007,whereby the petitioner's case for being considered for assignment of look after charge was examined. Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified The anxiety of the petitioner is that an observation has been made in para 2 of the Office Order to the effect that the officers of MCD shall not qualifyfor promotion/assignment of higher post/sensitive post in the following events : "a. those charge-sheeted b. those having police case c. those with currency of penalty d. those under suspension." The aforesaid anxiety of the petitioner is answered by the counsel for the respondent by clarifyingthat the case of the petitioner for being considered for promotionto the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil)shall be dealt with in accordancewith the judgmentrenderedby the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. K.V.Ianakiraman reported as AIR 1991 SC 2010 and mere pendency of a police case will not come in his way unless and until a charge sheet is issued against the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid statement made on behalf of the respondent,counselfor the petitionerstates that the writ petitionmay be disposed of. The writ petition stands disposed of. HIMA KOHLIJ NOVEMBER 23, 2007 sk