IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 4659 of 2009. Decided on: 29th March, 2010. H.R. Sharma. …Petitioner. Versus HPSEB. …Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Adarsh K. Vashishta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Shashi Shirshoo, Advocate. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved only on the ground that DPC had adopted a sealed cover procedure. According to the petitioner on the date of DPC, i.e. 28.4.2008, no proceedings were pending against him so as to adopt a sealed cover procedure. Learned counsel for the Board submits that the case of the petitioner was under consideration by the Vigilance at the relevant time and thereafter the case has been registered and charge has been laid before the Court. But the crucial point is that at the relevant time i.e. 28.4.2008, whether the law permitted the sealed cover procedure. If the Rules permit the sealed cover procedure on account of any pending enquiry by the Vigilance Department against the petitioner then the DPC is justified and if not the DPC will have to follow the normal procedure and consider the petitioner along with others for selection and promotion. It is certainly open to the Board thereafter to proceed against him in departmental proceedings, in case such situation warranted for such action. Therefore, there will be a direction to the first respondent to look into Annexure P-5, representation in the light of the observations contained in this judgment and take appropriate action in accordance with law within two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice March 29, 2010. (Justice R.B. Misra), (tr) Judge.