CWP No.10969 of 1988 (O&M) [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.10969 of 1988 (O&M) Date of Decision: 07.12.2011 Prem Chand Jain ... Petitioner Versus State Bank of Patiala ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:Mr. V.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondent. ***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by a denial of consideration for promotion through the merit channel for the promotion that fell due for the year 1985 and to a subsequent denial of consideration for promotion on seniority-cum-merit basis for the vacancies arising for the years 1986-87. The merit consideration for the year 1985 stipulated an eligibility of 6 years experience, which the petitioner had. Though he had been called for interview on 14.12.1988, he had not been considered since there a chargesheet issued against him for some misconduct before the date of enquiry. Subsequently, for the years 1986-87, the consideration for promotion on the basis of seniority still required a process of interview for suitability but he was still found ineligible on account of pendency of CWP No.10969 of 1988 (O&M) [2] enquiry on the basis of the chargesheet. It appears that the charge ultimately culminated in having been established but he was given a punishment of censure. It should have been possible for the petitioner to seek for consideration of his case by adopting the sealed cover procedure in the manner contemplated by a subsequent judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in “Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109”. But it appears that such procedure was not adopted. It is only academic, for the charge ultimately resulted in it proof and he had also been given a punishment. The petitioner is unable to show me that a punishment of censure would not disqualify a person for being considered for promotion. Again the issue of adoption of sealed cover procedure has no meaning for drawing up a panel for the selection for the vacancies that arose in the years 1985-86. It appears that the petitioner had been promoted subsequently in the year 1988. The petitioner cannot be treated as having been promoted earlier since by that time when the consideration was under progress, he was ineligible on account of pendency of charges against him. 2. The petitioner cannot have any favourable consideration on the facts disclosed and the petition shall stand dismissed. DECEMBER 07, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE