NELSON SAILO, J.

1. Heard Mr. J.C Lalnunsanga, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. A.K Rokhum, the learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram.

2. Considering the grievances projected by the writ petitioner, the writ petition is taken up for disposal with the consent of the learned counsels for the rival parties.

3. Brief facts for disposal of the present writ petition may be noticed at the outset. The petitioner, upon being recommended by the Mizoram Public Service Commission (MPSC), was appointed to the post of Subordinate Agricultural Service-I w.e.f, the date of his joining vide Notification dated 28.8.95 (Annexure-I). While he was posted in the establishment of the District Horticulture Office at Saiha (now Siaha), a criminal case was registered against the petitioner along with 4 other persons i.e., ACB PS C/No. 10/2012 dated 05.10.2012 under Sections 120B/468/477A of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 13 (1) (b)/13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Criminal case was registered on the allegation that there was a misappropriation of Rs. 15,81,222/- by the accused persons including the petitioner for their own pecuniary benefits. Following the completion of the investigation, a charge sheet under aforesaid sections of law was submitted by the prosecution i.e., Charge Sheet No. 2/2015 dated 16.02.2015. However, at the time of the consideration of the charge, the learned Trial Court under the Prevention of Corruption Act, not having found a prima facie case against all the accused persons, including the petitioner, was pleased but discharged them from the liability under the aforesaid sections of law. The order of discharge was passed by the learned Trial Court on 12.11.2015 (Annexure-2).

4. The claim of the petitioner is that as per the Mizoram Horticulture Service Rules, 2006, the next promotional post from the Grade-V post of the Department of Horticulture is to a Grade-IV post, which includes the post of Horticulture Development Officer/Addl. Divisional Horticulture Officer. Accordingly, the petitioner being eligible for promotion was considered by the MPSC, after Vigilance clearance was given by the Vigilance Department vide ID No. C. 31015/16/2016-VIG dated 18.08.2016. However, on account of the registration of the criminal case, the petitioner's recommendation was kept in a sealed cover. However, following discharge of the petitioner, the sealed cover was opened and it was found that the MPSC had recommended the petitioner for promotion to Grade-IV of the Mizoram Horticulture Service. A communication to this effect was made by the Deputy Secretary of the MPSC to the Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (GSW) on 09.01.2017 (Annexure-6). Despite opening the sealed cover, the respondents did not promote the petitioner since the filing of a criminal revision petition against the judgment & order, by which he was discharged by the learned Trial Court was contemplated.

5. Admittedly, the State has preferred Criminal Revision Petition No. 2/2017 and the learned counsels for the rival parties submit that the same is pending for final disposal as on date. The Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Horticulture Department vide her Communication dated 8.8.2017 (Annexure 10) informed the Director of Horticulture Department that the promotion of the petitioner cannot be considered at this stage since the criminal revision petition is pending for final decision. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court.

6. Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. J.C Lalnunsanga, the learned counsel submits that following the recommendation of the MPSC, as many as 8 (eight) juniors of the petitioners, have since been promoted. He submits that the State respondents cannot deny the petitioner his due promotion, inasmuch as he was discharged by the learned Trial Court vide the Judgment & Order dated 12.11.2015 and withholding the promotion