The main legal point established in the judgment is that the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee cannot be kept in a sealed cover on account of the pendency of inquiry proceedings without the issuance of a charge sheet, as specified in the relevant Government Order.

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, as amended vide order dated 10.2.2010, passed by the respondent no. 2 by which petitioner has been removed from the post of Chief Veterinary Officer, Gorakhpur (Annexures No. 1 & 2 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 1979. The petitioner was transferred from Balrampur to Veterinary Hospital, Sadar, District Gorakhpur vide order dated 04.7.2006. Subsequently, vide order dated 29.6.2007 he, being the senior most, was appointed as Chief Veterinary Officer, Gorakhpur. as per the provisions of Rule 5(2) of U. P. Veterinary Group-B Service Rules, 1998. An inquiry was initiated against the petitioner vide order dated 13.10.2008 which is still pending.

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 Department 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 nor any chargesheet has been issued to him till date. The petitioner came to know that result of Departmental Promotion Committee in respect of petitioner has been kept in sealed cover on account of pendency of inquiry against the petitioner in pursuance of the order dated 13.10.2008. 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.

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 the Tribunal for which chargesheet has been issued; and (c)if the prosecution is pending against an employee on the basis of criminal charges, meaning thereby chargesheet has been submitted in the Court.

9. On the strength of the aforesaid Government Order, learned cou