The crucial date for adoption of sealed cover procedure is the date of consideration for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee, not the eligibility date, and is based on the principle of fair play and good conscience.

JUDGMENT

Sheel Nagu, J. - The instant intra-court appeal filed u/S 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, assails the final order passed on 10.12.2019 in WP.7320/2016 by the learned Single Judge while exercising writ jurisdiction u/Art.226 of the Constitution dismissing the petition in question by which challenge was made to Annexure P-1, an order rejecting representation of petitioner preferred against the decision to adopt sealed cover procedure by DPC dated 27.02.2016 on account of petitioner having been issued charge-sheet on 08.02.2016 i.e. prior to holding of the said DPC but subsequent to 01.01.2015 which was the eligibility date for consideration by the said DPC.

2. Learned counsel for the rival parties are heard on the question of admission.

3. Learned Single Judge by relying upon the decisions of Apex Court in the case of " Union of India and others Vs. K.V. Jankiraman and others, 1991 4 SCC 109 and Union of India and others Vs. Dr. Sudha Salhan (Smt), 1998 3 SCC 394 " dismissed the petition in question by holding that for the purpose of adoption of sealed cover the crucial date is the date when consideration for promotion takes place and not any other prior date.

4. The seminal question which begs for an answer in the instant case is as to whether it is the date of eligibility fixed by DPC for consideration or the date of holding DPC, which will form the crucial date for deciding as to whether sealed cover procedure is to be adopted?

5. The undisputed facts of the case relevant for deciding the said question are that DPC in question met on 27.02.2016 which considered the eligible persons including the petitioner for promotion to the post of Joint Director, Kisan Kalyan Tatha Krishi Vikas. Pertinently, the said DPC prescribed 01.01.2015 as the eligibility date for consideration of candidates in the zone of consideration. Clause 8 of the minutes of DPC filed by the petitioner vide document 2032/2020 on 14.02.2020 is to the following extent:

6. The petitioner was considered for promotion but the recommendations were put in sealed cover despite charge-sheet having been issued on 08.02.2016 (after the eligibility date of 01.01.2015).

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner primarily submits that since the crucial date for eligibility to be considered for promotion by the DPC was fixed as 01.01.2015, the decision to adopt sealed cover or not should also be taken in view of the situation prevailing on 01.01.2015, without being affected by any subsequent development, meaning thereby as urged that since the petitioner on 01.01.2015 was not under any cloud of disciplinary proceedings [charge-sheet having been issued subsequently on 08.02.2016] the DPC held on 27.02.2016 could not have taken into account the subsequent event of issuance of charge-sheet on 08.02.2016 while considering petitioner for promotion in DPC dated 27.02.2016. It is, thus, submitted that the adoption of sealed cover by the said DPC was by taking into account extraneous consideration which ought to have been ignored. On this premise, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed for quashing of the impugned order before the writ court and as well as this court.

8. The concept of adoption of sealed cover is not statutorily provided. The said concept is governed by executive instructions and judicial pronouncements. The Apex Court in the case of K.V. Jankiraman (supra) has explained the concept of sealed cover, its sweep and limitation in detail. Relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:

"8. The common questions involved in all these matters relate to what in service jurisprudence has come to be known as "sealed cover procedure". Concisely stated, the questions are:--(1) what is the date from which it can be said that disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against an employee? (2) What is the course to be adopted when the employee is held guilty in such p