IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.86 of 2009 SHIV RATAN PRASAD son of late Ram Jatan Prasad, resident of village, P.O. and P.S. Forbesganj, District Araria … … Appellant Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat Building, Patna 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary in the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat Building, Patna 3. The Under Secretary in the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat Building, Patna. … … Respondents For the appellant: Mr.Sanjay Singh Mr.Arvind Saroj For the State: Mr. A.C. to A.A.G. 2 ----------- 4. 3.3.2009 The writ petitioner-appellant aggrieved by the order dated 27.11.2008 passed by a learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.7966 of 2007 dismissing the writ application, has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The Writ petitioner-appellant (hereinafter to be referred to as the petitioner) filed the writ application, inter alia, seeking direction for quashing the decision dated 10th of April,2006, whereby the case of promotion of the petitioner to the 2 post of Joint Secretary has been kept in sealed cover. Said prayer has been negatived by the impugned order. It is not in dispute that at the time when the Departmental Promotion Committee met to consider the case of promotion of the petitioner, a departmental proceeding was pending against him. In view of the resolution of the State Government dated 11.9.2002, the petitioner’s case for promotion was considered and kept in a sealed cover. There is further not in dispute that petitioner has been visited with the penalty. Once it is done, in view of p0aragraph 2(vii) of the resolution aforesaid, the sealed cover was not required to be reopened,. The learned Judge has observed so and we do not find any error in the same. Mr.Sanjay Singh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the effect of the punishment has come to an end and, therefore, the sealed cover be opened. Even after we assume in favour of the petitioner that the effect of the punishment has come to an end, that shall not entitle 3 the petitioner to get the sealed cover opened. In the face of the language of paragraph 2(vii) of the resolution dated 11.9.2002, it is evident that in case an employee is visited with the punishment, the sealed cover is not to be opened and his case for promotion is to be considered in the next meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ application has so observed. We do not find any merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed in limine. Kanth ( C.K.Prasad, A.C.J.) ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)