V. RAMASUBRAMANAIAN, J.

1. Aggrieved by the non-inclusion of their names in the list of persons coming within the zone of consideration, for promotion to the post of Civil Judges (Senior Division), the petitioners in both the writ petitions have come with the above writ petitions.

2. Heard Mr. Anand Kumar Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.18967 of 2018, Smt. Neeraja Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.21288 of 2018, Smt. V. Uma Devi and Mr. J. Anil Kumar, learned standing counsel taking notice for the Registry of the High Court.

3. By a notification issued on 28-04-2018, this Court invited attested copies of five judgments from about 111 officers working as Civil Judges (Junior Division) for being considered for promotion to the post of Civil Judges (Senior Division). The notification was for filling up 37 vacancies in the category of Civil Judges (Senior Division). The number of officers from whom copies of judgments were invited, were in the ratio of 1:3.

4. Though the petitioners in these two writ petitions are sufficiently senior to be included among the 111 candidates, who have come within the zone of consideration, the petitioners have been left out of the notification dated 28-04-2018, on the sole ground that both of them are facing disciplinary proceedings for different articles of charges for grave misconduct. Therefore, challenging the action of the respondents in excluding the petitioners even from the zone of consideration on account of the pendency of charges, the petitioners have come up with the above writ petitions.

5. It is contended by Mr. Anand Kumar Kapoor, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the first writ petition (i) that the preamble to the Constitution guarantees to all citizens, equality of status and of opportunity; (ii) that while Article 14 is couched in the negative, directing that the State shall not deny equality before law or equal protection of the laws to any person, Article 16 is couched in the positive, guaranteeing equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office; (iii) that while there may be no right to promotion, there is certainly a fundamental right to be considered for promotion; (iv) that in the absence of a rule enabling the appointing authority to deny even a consideration for promotion, the omission to consider will be without the authority of law and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution; (v) that as per the law declared by the Supreme Court, there are only two options open to the appointing authority namely either to promote without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings or to adopt a sealed cover procedure if prescribed by the rules and (vi) that in any case the petitioner in the first writ petition was empanelled last year and hence, his exclusion from the panel of the current year is a denial of a constitutional right.

6. In support of his above contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner in the first writ petition relied upon the decisions reported in (1) Prabhakar Yeshwant Joshi v. The State of Maharashtra, (2) State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas, (3) Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, (4) C.O. Arumugam and others v. State of Tamil Nadu, (5) B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (6) State of M.P. v. R.N. Mishra and another and (7) Coal India Ltd., v. Saroj Kumar Mishra.

7. Smt. Neeraja Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in the second writ petition advanced similar arguments and contended that the mere pendency of an enquiry into grave charges cannot be a bar even for a consideration of the claim of a person for promotion.

8. We have carefully considered the above submissions.

9. Out of the six points that Mr. Anand Kumar Kapoor, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised, we have no difficulty in conceding the first three points namely (i) that the preamble to the Constitution guarantees to all citizens, equality of st