IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 632 (SS) of 2010 Ranjeet Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate present for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Bisht, learned Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Bisht, learned Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhnd. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Head Constable in the Police Department of State of Uttarakhand. He faced a Departmental Promotion Committee for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector. According to the petitioner, he faced selection committee on 30.07.2009. However, result was declared on 17.12.2009, in which the petitioner was selected. In between these two dates, an F.I.R. was lodged by the wife of the petitioner against him at Police Station Binauli, district Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh registered as case crime no. 282/09A, under Sections 498-A/504 and 506 read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. On this a charge sheet was filed on against the petitioner before the appropriate court on 28.8.2009 i.e. before the result was declared by the Departmental Promotion Committee. Meanwhile the petitioner was selected and sent for training. However, when this fact regarding the filing of the charge sheet and the criminal proceeding was revealed, the impugned order dated 3.7.2010 and consequential order dated 6.7.2010 were passed by respondent no. 2 and 3 respectively whereby the initial order of promotion of the 2 petitioner has been put in abeyance and a sealed cover procedure was adopted as contemplated under Clause 2 of Government Order dated 13.5.2003, which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. 3. In the counter affidavit, the State Government has also alleged the fact that the petitioner had not disclosed the fact before the concerned authority more particularly before the Departmental Promotion Committee about the lodging of the F.I.R. and the fact that charge sheet has also been filed against him. 4. From the pursuant of Government Order dated 13.5.2003 more particularly clause 2, clause 10 and clause 11 it is absolutely clear that under the facts and circumstances of the case the Departmental Promotion Committee had earlier wrongly declared the result of the petitioner as under the facts and circumstances of the present case sealed cover procedure should have been adopted. Therefore, no interference can be made to the impugned orders dated 3.7.2010 passed by respondent no. 2 and consequential order dated 6.7.2010 passed by respondent no. 3. 5. The petitioner though relied upon Clause 10 of the Government Order dated. 13.5.2003 on which learned counsel for the appellant submits that such contingency is not applicable in the present case as there is no departmental proceeding going on against the petitioner. Moreover, the petitioner is at liberty to move an appropriate application for expediting this matter before the competent/superior authority in accordance with law. 3 6. For the reasons as stated, the writ petition is dismissed. 7. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) Dated: 21.11.2011 VKG