IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION NO : 17256 of 1998 Between: G.Venkata Subrahmanyeswara Rao, S/o.Parthasaradhi, MIG, 1293 BHEL, Ramachandrapuram. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited, Rep.by its General Manager, (Personnel) Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad - 500 032, 2 General Manager (M&S), Bharath Heavy Electricals Limited, Ramachandrapuram, Hyderabad - 500 032 .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction declaring in not considering the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager with effect from 1995 as illegal, arbitrary etc., with a consequential direction to the respondents to promote him to the post of Deputy Manager with effect from 25/6/1995 the date on which persons appointed along with him were promoted, assigning appropriate seniority, with all consequntial monetary other benefits and grant such other order. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.V.V.L.N.SARMA Counsel for the Respondents: MR.S.V.BHATT The Court made the following Order: Questioning the action of the respondents in not considering his case for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager with effect from 1995 as illegal and arbitrary, and seeking a consequential direction to the respondents to promote him to the post of Deputy Manager with effect from 25-06-1995, the date on which persons appointed along with him were promoted, the present writ petition is filed. Petitioner was appointed as an Engineer (trainee) in the respondent-Company under the scheduled tribe category in the year 1985. His probation was declared on 28-09-1987. Thereafter he was regularly appointed as an Engineer (Electrical) with effect from 19-09-1987. Subsequently, he was promoted as a Senior Engineer on 26-12-1990. On 03-06-1992, the scheduled tribe certificate granted in favour of the petitioner’s father was cancelled. The cancellation led to the proposal dated 03-07-1992 whereby disciplinary action was proposed to be taken against the petitioner. This proposal culminated in sanction being accorded by the General Manager of the respondent-Company for initiation of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Both the petitioner and his father filed O.S.No.2806 of 1992 on the file of the X Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, questioning the cancellation of the caste certificate. Pending the suit, an order of temporary injunction was passed restraining the respondents from giving effect to the order of cancellation. It is necessary to note that the respondent-Company was also arrayed as a party to the suit. O.S.No.2806 of 1992 was dismissed by the learned X Assistant Judge by order dated 29- 01-1996. Soon thereafter, the respondents issued a charge memo dated 19-12-1996. While matters stood thus the caste certificate, granted in favour of the petitioner, was cancelled vide proceedings dated 21-01-1997. The first appeal in A.S.No.54 of 1996 was decreed on 21-03-1997. It is not in dispute that the judgment in A.S.No.54 of 1996 dated 21-03-1997 has attained finality. However, the Government is said to have preferred a second appeal in S.A.(SR).No.72163 of 1997. Neither party is in a position to state as to what transpired thereafter and the current status of the second appeal. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager on completion of four years of service as a Senior Engineer and that he had completed four years of service as on 26-12-1994. While the petitioner would contend that he is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Manager along with those who had completed four years of service as Senior Engineers in 1994-95, it is the case of the respondents that, since promotion to the post of Deputy Manager was by way of selection and the respondent-Company has a prescribed sealed cover procedure in existence ever since 1990, in cases where disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or where criminal proceedings are pending, the delinquent is also considered for promotion along with others but his result is kept in a sealed cover which would be opened only on completion of the disciplinary proceedings/criminal proceedings, as the case may be. Respondents contend that the petitioner’s case was considered periodically from the year 1995 onwards but, since disciplinary proceedings are not yet complete, the sealed cover could not be opened nor its contents given effect to. Sri S.V.Bhatt, learned standing counsel for the respondent- Company, would place before this Court the original sealed cover procedure prescribed vide memo dated 07-03-1990 and the later sealed cover procedure, which was brought into force by the respondents from 1997 onwards. Learned counsel would also place reliance on State of Madya Pradesh v. Syed Naseem Zahir[1] to contend that, even in cases where disciplinary proceedings are contemplated, the sealed cover procedure can be resorted to. While Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, would emphasize that the judgment and decree in A.S.No.54 of 1996 dated 21-03-1997 has attained finality, and that the said judgment is binding on the respondent-Company which was a party to the appeal, it is not in dispute that the disciplinary proceedings instituted against the petitioner was not the subject matter of consideration either in the suit or in the appeal. What would be the effect of the judgment, in A.S.No.54 of 1996, on the disciplinary enquiry is for the disciplinary authority to examine, if and when such a contention is raised before him by the petitioner herein. While Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that the disciplinary proceedings were dropped as early as in the year 2003, he would fairly concede that no order to that effect was ever communicated to the petitioner. Sri S.V.Bhatt, learned standing counsel for the respondent-Company, would reiterate that the respondents have not closed the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner till date. He would contend that the delay in completion of the enquiry was solely on account of non-cooperation by the petitioner herein. While this is disputed by Sri V.V.L.N.Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, it is wholly unnecessary for this Court, at this stage, to examine the rival contentions in this regard since the disciplinary proceedings are not put in issue in these writ proceedings and it is only the action of the respondents in not promoting the petitioner which is the subject matter of consideration. Since the respondent-Company has a sealed cover procedure policy in force which requires the result of a candidate, who is considered for selection, to be kept in a sealed cover, and thereunder the sealed cover is required to be opened only on culmination of the disciplinary proceedings, ends of justice would be met if the respondent-Company were directed to complete the disciplinary enquiry initiated against the petitioner, at the earliest, in any event, not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is always open to the petitioner to raise all such contentions as are available to him in law, before the disciplinary authority, including the judgment and decree in A.S.No.54 of 1996 dated 21-03-1997. Needless to state that opening of the sealed cover would be subject to the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings. The Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of. However, in the circumstances, without costs. _____________ 28-02-2008 usd [1] 1993 Supp (2) SCC 225