The main legal point established in the judgment is that the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee should not be kept in sealed cover if no charge-sheet was issued prior to the Committee meeting, as per the relevant service rules and government order.

Devendra Kumar Arora, J.-

Heard Sri Raghvendra Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Addl. Chief Standing Counsel, appearing for the official respondents.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus for commanding the respondents to open the sealed cover and to declare the result of the Departmental Promotion Committee with respect to the petitioner. The petitioner is also seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 09.2.2010, passed by the respondent no. 2 by which petitioner has been removed from the charge of the post of Chief Veterinary Officer, Mahrajganj (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition).

3. Sri Raghvendra Singh, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner addressed the Court only with respect to prayer no. 1 and, therefore, this writ petition is being considered and decided only with respect to issue of keeping the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee in sealed cover.

4. Since legal question is involved, as such, with the consent of parties, we proceed to hear and decide this matter finally.

5. The brief facts of the case, as culled out from the pleadings of the writ petition, are that the petitioner was appointed directly on the post of Veterinary Officer in the Department of Animal Husbandry through U. P. Public Service Commission in the year 1984. In August 2007, the petitioner was posted as Veterinary Officer, Veterinary Hospital, Sadar, District Maharajganj. Subsequently, in February, 2008, he, being the senior most, was posted as Chief Veterinary Officer, Maharajganj. as per the provisions of Rule 5(2) of U. P. Veterinary Group-B Service Rules, 1998. An inquiry was initiated against the petitioner in pursuance to Inspection Report submitted by Deputy Director on 23.8.2008. Subsequently, chargesheet was issued to the petitioner on 16.12.2009 to which the petitioner has also filed his reply.

6. The meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee was held on 25.11.2009 for considering the officers of Veterinary Service Group-B for promotion to Class-I post of Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer/Deputy Director/Superintendent and result of the same was declared on 29.1.2010 but name of the petitioner did not find place in the list of candidates promoted to Class-I post whereas his juniors were promoted to Class-I post in pursuance of the recommendations of the aforesaid Departmental Promotion Committee.

7. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that as per Service Rules, criteria of promotion is seniority subject to rejection of unfit. The work and conduct of the petitioner has always been good. Petitioner has not been communicated any adverse entry/remark. The petitioner came to know that result of the Departmental Promotion Committee in respect of petitioner has been kept in sealed cover on account of pendency of inquiry proceedings against the petitioner in pursuance of the Inspection Report dated 23.8.2008 submitted by Deputy Director, Animal Husbandry. Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on account of pendency of the disciplinary proceedings the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee cannot be kept in sealed cover until and unless chargesheet has been issued prior to the date of Departmental Promotion Committee and admittedly the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee held on 25.11.2009 and the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 16.12.2009.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a Government Order dated 28th May, 1997, para 2 of which provides that the recommendations of Departmental Promotion Committee shall be kept in sealed envelope in the following circumstances: (a) the employee has been placed under suspension; (b) if disciplinary proceedings are pending against the employee or proceedings are pending before t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document