IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP (T) No. 2554 of 2008. Decided on: 9.4.2009. __________________________________________________ Shri Faquir Chand … Petitioner. Versus Registrar, Co-operative Societies, H.P.… Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Nemo. For the Respondent : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Dy.A.G. ___________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral). The petitioner was working as Inspector. The post of Inspector is in the feeder category for promotion to the post of District Inspector/District Audit Officer. The post is non-selection post. It appears from the records that vide letter dated 5.9.1994, decision was taken to take criminal action against the petitioner for committing offence under Section 5 (2) and now Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and also to proceed against him departmentally under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. In view of this communication from the office of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies to the 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?No. 2 Director-cum-Additional Secretary (Vigilance) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh, the petitioner though was considered for promotion on 27.4.1995, however, the recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee were kept in a sealed cover. He assailed this decision of the State Government by filing the original application before the learned H.P. Administrative Tribunal. The learned Tribunal directed the State to open the sealed cover and to take final decision regarding promotion of the petitioner on the basis of letter dated 18.8.1995. It has come in the letter dated 18.8.1995 that the criminal action to be initiated against the petitioner could not stand in the court of law and there was no direct cogent evidence against him. Consequently, the sealed cover was opened and the petitioner was promoted to the post of District Audit Officer on 19.12.1995. Thereafter, he superannuated on 30.11.1996. It is evident from the aforesaid facts that neither any criminal case was registered against the petitioner nor departmental proceedings were initiated against him as per communication dated 5.9.1994. In these circumstances, even the sealed cover procedure could not be resorted. 3 However, fact of the matter is that on the basis of letter dated 18.8.1995, the sealed cover was opened and the petitioner now stands promoted with effect from 19.12.1995. Accordingly, the writ petition has become infructuous after the promotion of the petitioner. However, it is clarified that the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits pursuant to office order dated 19.12.1995. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. April 9, 2009. (cr)