P.B.Bajanthri, J.

In the instant appeal, appellant has assailed the learned Single Judge's order dated 02.11.2018 passed in W.P.No.203924/2018. Grievance of the appellant before the learned Single Judge reads as under:

"Petitioner is working as Assistant Engineer in Public Works Department. On account of a complaint lodged by one Mr. Subash Hosamani claiming himself to be the President of Karnataka Pranta Raita Sangha, Taluk Samithi, Jewargi Taluk, Kalaburagi District, an enquiry came to be instituted against the petitioner by 2nd respondent by order dated 17.05.2017. Articles of charges came to be issued as per Annexure-B and a report came to be submitted under Section 12(3) on 20.02.2017 by the 2nd respondent. Based on the said report, 3rd respondent has passed an order referring the matter for enquiry and report vide proceedings dated 10.05.2017 Annexure-D.

2. During pendency of said enquiry, Departmental Promotion Committee ('DPC' for short) meeting came to be convened to fill up the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, Divisional-1 by promotion in accordance with Rule 32 of Karnataka Civil Service Rules and petitioner who was in the zone of consideration also came to be considered by the DPC in its meeting held on 20.04.2018 and it was opined by DPC that result of the proceedings of the DPC for promoting the petitioner be kept in a sealed cover vide proceedings dated 20.04.2018 Annexure-E. Pursuant to same, petitioner is said to have submitted a representation on 28.04.2018 Annexure-F to 3rd respondent which has not been considered. Hence, petitioner is before this Court for quashing of the enquiry proceedings pending on the file of 1st and 2nd respondent in so far as petitioner is concerned and has prayed for a writ of mandamus being issued to 3rd respondent to consider the representation dated 28.04.2018 Annexure-F.

2. The appellant is in the cadre of Assistant Engineer in the department of Public Works Department, Government of Karnataka. After certain investigation by the Karnataka Lokayukta a report was submitted under Section 12(3). Consequently, enquiry proceedings were commenced. In the meanwhile petitioner was due for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, Division-1 and such consideration is with reference to Rule 32 of KCSR (placing independent charge of the post). The learned Single Judge rejected the first prayer and insofar as second prayer it was ordered as under:

"12. In so far as second prayer with regard to direction being issued to 3rd respondent for consideration of petitioner's representation, it would suffice to direct 1st and 2nd respondents to expedite the enquiry and immediately based on outcome of the enquiry proceedings 3rd respondent would necessarily be required to consider the prayer of the petitioner for promotion by opening the sealed cover if he is entitled for being considered."

Thus, the appellant is dissatisfied and aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, presented this appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that matter is covered by decision passed by this Court in W.P.No.43389/2018, W.P.No.43388/2018 and W.P.No.43676/2018, wherein this Court has directed the official respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner therein with reference to decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab and Others vs. Chaman Lal Goyal, (1995) 2 SCC 570.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the order of the learned Single Judge. It was argued that even though grievance of the petitioner in respect of the first prayer is rejected, however, the observation has been made to expedite the enquiry. If the appellant succeeded in enquiry to the extent of exoneration in that event he is entitled to consider his name for promotion from retrospective i.e. from the date of his juniors promotion. Therefore, the appellant has not made out a case so as to interfere with the learned Single Judge's order.

5. Hear