IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 586 (SS) of 2008 Mahesh Chandra …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Mr. Mohd. Azim and Anurag Bisaria, learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Dated: December 14, 2009 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:- “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Inspector. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the representation of the petitioner dated 14.01.2008 & 02.07.2008 (Annexures-4 and 5 to the writ petition). (iii) Issue, any other order or direction which this Hon’ble High Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (iv) Award cost of the petition to the petitioner.” Brief facts of the case as emerged out from the record are that in the year 1982 the petitioner was appointed as Sub Inspector. On 26.11.2007 the respondent no. 1 issued a letter whereby a list of eligible candidates for interview for the post of Inspector was issued. The name of the petitioner was figured at Sl. No. 44 in the said list. In pursuance of the 2 order dated 26.11.2007 the petitioner appeared before the Interview committee on 03.12.2007. On 31.12.2008 the respondents declared the result but the petitioner’s name was not shown in the select list. The select list contained the name of juniors. Being aggrieved, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents on 14.10.2008 requesting for his promotion as he has been serving in the department since last 24 years. But nothing was done on his representation. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that a matrimonial dispute is pending against the petitioner at district Ghaziabad (U.P.) and due to this reason he has not been promoted. On 02.07.2008 the petitioner submitted another representation, but in vain. Hence present petition. Respondent no. 3 in his counter affidavit submitted that due to the reason that a Criminal Case No. 591 of 2005, under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is pending against the petitioner before the courts below, the name of the petitioner was not included in the select list in view of G.O. dated 13.05.2003 and the result of departmental promotion committee regarding promotion of the petitioner has been kept in a sealed cover. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed by respondents it has been submitted that there is no provision in the Police Regulations or Govt. orders on the subject for ad hoc promotion of an incumbent to the post of Inspector. In his rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner denied the contents of counter affidavit. The petitioner also mentioned in his rejoinder affidavit that the petitioner and his family members approached before the Apex Court and 3 the Hon’ble Apex Court was pleased to stay the proceedings of criminal case no. 591 of 2005, under Sections 498-A and 323 IPC read with Section 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that pendency of permission for prosecution or even any prosecution pending is not an impediment for promotion of the petitioner without any conviction against him. He further submitted that the action of the respondents is not only discriminatory but also illegal and arbitrary. He further submitted that Clause-10 of the G.O. dated 13.05.2003 provides that an employee who is not suspended and has been charged for the first time and sealed cover procedure has been adopted for more than one year, shall be considered for promotion. According to learned counsel for the petitioner clause-10 of G.O. dated 13.05.2003 is fully applicable in the matter of the petitioner and the petitioner deserves promotion. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that in view of stay of further proceeding of criminal case no. 591 of 2005 the respondents cannot deprive the petitioner from his right to be considered for promotion and he is legally entitled to get his due promotion. Shri H.M. Raturi, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that due to Govt. Order No. 1595/Karmik-2/2002 dated 13.05.2003, the recommendation of selection committee regarding petitioner is kept in sealed cover and matter pertaining to promotion shall only be considered after final disposal of criminal case. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The respondents’ case is that in view of Govt. Order dated 1595/Karmik-02/2002 dated 13.05.2003, the 4 sealed cover procedure was adopted. It is true that G.O. dated 13.05.2003 provides that in the matter where criminal proceedings are pending, the competent authority can adopt sealed cover proceeding. But clause-10 of this G.O. also provides that where result of an employee is kept in a sealed cover for more than one year and such employee is not under suspension, the claim of such employee for ad-hoc promotion shall be considered by the selection committee. Clause-10 of the G.O. No. 1595/Karmik-2/2002 dated 13.05.2003 are reproduced below:- “¼10½ p;u lfefr }kjk izFke ckj vkjksfir dkfeZd dh izksUufr ij fopkj djus ,oa eqgjcan fyQkQs dh izfd`;k viuk;s tkus ds ckn ,d o"kZ dh vof/k chr tkus ij Hkh ¼bl vof/k esa ,slh vof/k vkxf.kr ugha dh tk;sxh] ftlesa vipkjh dfeZd }kjk vlg;ksx ds dkj.k tkap izfd`;k esa foyEc gqvk½ ;fn vkjksfir dkfeZd ds fo"k; esa iz’kklukf/kdj.k dh tkap@foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh@vfHk;kstu dk vafre ifj.kke izkIr u gqvk gks] rks ,sls dkfeZd ds fo"k; esa] tks fuyfEcr ugha gS] p;u lfefr }kjk fuEufyf[kr izfrca/kksa ds lkFk rnFkZ vk/kkj ij izksUufr ds laca/k esa fopkj fd;k tk;sxk%& ¼d½ D;k vkjksfir dkfeZd ds fo#) yxk;s x;s vkjksi brus xaHkhj gS fd muds vk/kkj ij mls Hkfo"; esa Hkh izksUufr ls oafpr j[kk tkuk mi;qDr@tufgr esa gksxk; ¼[k½ iz’kklukf/kdj.k dh tkap@foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh@ vfHk;kstu ds vafre ifj.kke izkIr gksus ij dkQh le; yxsxk; ¼x½ iz’kklukf/kdj.k dh tkap@foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh@ vfHk;kstu esa gks jgs foyEc ds fy;s izR;{k ;k ijks{k #i ls vkjksfir dkfeZd nks"kh ugha gS; ¼?k½ D;k vkjksfir dkfeZd dks rnFkZ izksUufr fn;s tkus ij og vius in dk nq#i;ksx vFkok tkap dks dqizHkkfor rks ugha djsxk; ¼³½ ;fn l{ke izkf/kdkjh mijksDr [k.M ¼d½] ¼[k½] ¼x½] ¼?k½ ds vk/kkj ij fopkjksijkUr vkjksfir dkfeZdksa dks rnFkZ vk/kkj ij izksUur djuk mi;qDr le>rs gS] rks ml n’kk esa foHkkxh; p;u lfefr ds lkeus ekeys dks j[kk tk;sxk] vkSj lfefr vkjksfir dkfeZd ds lEiw.kZ vfHkys[kksa ds vk/kkj ij mlds dk;Z dk ewY;kadu djsxh rFkk rnFkZ #i ls izkUUfr nsus vFkok u nsus ds fo"k; esa viuh laLrqfr nsxh( ¼p½ ;fn tkap iz’kklukf/kdj.k vkfn fdlh vU; laLFkk }kjk djkbZ tk jgh gks rks ml n’kk esa ml 5 ,tsUlh dk ijke’kZ Hkh bl fcUnq ¼rnFkZ vk/kkj ij izksUufr nsus½ ij izkIr fd;k tk;sxk( ¼N½ mi;qZDr izfd`;k ds mijkUr vkjksfir dkfeZd dks rnFkZ #i ls izksUur fd;s tkus ds vkns’kksa esa ;g Li"V fd;k tk;sxk fd izksUufr vfxze vkns’kksa rd ds fy, dh tkrh gS vkSj 'kklu dks mDr rnFkZ izksUufr dks dHkh Hkh lekIr dj nsus dk vf/kdkj gS rFkk rn~uqlkj ,sls dkfeZd dks ml in ij izR;kofrZr fd;k tk ldrk gS ftl in ls mls izksUur fd;k x;k Fkk( ¼t½ rnFkZ vk/kkj ij izksUur vkjksfir dkfeZd ds fo#) py jgh iz’kklukf/kdj.k dh tkap@foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh@ vfHk;kstu vkfn fd vfUre ifj.kke izkIr gks tkus ij mlds fo"k; esa mlh izdkj vfxze dk;Zokgh dh tk;sxh] tSlh ml n’kk esa dh tkrh] ;fn mls rnFkZ izksUufr u nh x;h gksrh( ¼>½ ;fn U;k;ky; }kjk fdlh rnFkZ #i ls izksUur dkfeZd dks rduhdh vk/kkj ij ¼xq.kkoxq.k ds vk/kkj ij ugha½ nks"keqDr fd;k tkrk gSa vkSj U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds fo#) vihy ;k mlh vkjksi ds fy;s foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dk izLrko gS rks ml n’kk esa l{ke izkf|dkjh bl fcUnq ij fopkj djsaxs fd vkjksfir dkfeZd dks rnFkZ izksUufr ij cuk;s j[kk tk; vFkok ughaA” In the present case the selection committee met on 03.12.2007 and kept the result of the petitioner in sealed cover. The petitioner is working in the department and has not been kept under suspension. Thus, in view of Clasue-10 of G.O. dated 13.05.2003, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for ad-hoc promotion. Therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for ad hoc promotion in the light of Clause-10 of the G.O. dated 13.05.2003 within a period of one month from today. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (V.K. Bist, J.) VKG 14.12.2009