IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8651 of 2009 Devendra Prasad Sharma . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- For the Petitioner:- Mr. Mithilesh Kr. Rai, Adv. Mr. Arun Kr. Singh, Adv. For the State:- Mr. Shivam Singh, AC to AAG-1. For the BPSC:- Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Adv. ------------- 3. 11.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner superannuated from the post of Police Inspector on 31.1.2009. He is aggrieved by denial of promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. It is submitted that his candidature was considered by the DPC on more than one occasion and finally on 24.7.2008 it was kept in sealed cover on account of the pending proceeding 2 of 2001 against him. Learned counsel submits that on 8.8.2008, the departmental proceedings were closed by a reasoned order without any finding of guilt against him. Thereafter there were no impediment in consideration of his case before his superannuation. The closed departmental proceeding was sought to be resurrected to life contrary to law on 13.8.2008 and which remained pending inconclusively till he superannuated. The 2 submission therefore is that there is no impediment in now opening the sealed cover. Counsel for the State submitted that the right to be considered for promotion is one aspect of the matter and promotion is another aspect of the matter. There is no right to promotion. It is an inchoate right. Therefore if the proceedings were re-commenced against the petitioner and he superannuated before conclusion, there is no infirmity in denying him consideration for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police by keeping it in sealed cover. The order dated 8.8.2008 closing the departmental proceedings is reasoned and reflects due application of mind to what transpired in the mind of the disciplinary authority and why he was satisfied to drop the proceeding. Once the proceeding was dropped it was dead. A dead proceeding could not be resurrected to life except by a fresh memo of charges. It is not the case of the respondents that any fresh memo of charge was issued to the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 13.8.2008. Had the earlier proceedings been dropped on account of deficiency in procedures, failure of the prosecution to lead proper evidence 3 etc., and after recording of reasons the matter may have been entirely different. The order dated 13.8.2008 does not reflect any application of mind to the grounds mentioned in the order dated 8.8.2008 dropping the proceedings. If the attempt of the respondents to resurrect a dead departmental proceeding dated 13.8.2008 is not being upheld by the Court, the petitioner stands on a clear slate as on 8.8.2008 when the proceedings were closed. The respondents shall now consider the case of the petitioner in accordance with law by opening the sealed cover. Let such appropriate decision be taken within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)