Mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be used as a ground to indefinitely deny promotion to an employee through the sealed cover procedure, particularly when the employee is permitted to continue in service.

1. Learned Standing Counsel placed Instructions dated 26.04.2026 before the Court, the same is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

3. It is argued by Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner that apart from all the three petitioners, two similarly situated persons namely Saurabh Sharma and Sachin Sharma who were not promoted and their results were kept in a sealed cover due to pendency of criminal case, approached this Court by filing Writ A No.15474 of 2024 which was finally decided by this Court vide order dated 18.02.2025. Sri Nisheeth Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that pursuant to the aforesaid order, consequential order has been passed by the Deputy Police Commissioner, Ghaziabad Commissionerate in favour of the aforesaid persons on 19.04.2025, copy of the same is appended at Page 156 of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon paragraph 16 & 17 of the judgement and order dated 26.05.2022 passed by this Court in the Writ A No.8151 of 2022 ( Neeraj Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and others ) which reads as follows:-

16. Learned Standing Counsel representing respondents has opposed the present writ petition.

He submits that case of petitoner for promotion on the post of Head Constable has been considered but has been placed in Sealed Cover on account of pendency of criminal case. The trial of criminal case has not yet concluded on account of interim order granted by this Court on the Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. filed by petitioner himself. Petitioner is a member of disciplined force. Offence complained of against petitioner is that of cheating and forgery. As such, no illegality has been committed in not opening the Sealed Cover regarding claim of petitioner.

17. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned standing counsel for State-respondents and upon perusal of record, the Court finds that it is an undisputed fact that irrespective of pendency of criminal case, petitioner has been allowed to continue. Therefore, mere pendency of a criminal case, prima-facie, cannot be taken as a ground to deny promotion of petitioner. The Competent Authority cannot withhold the claim of petitioner indefinitely on the ground of having adopted Sealed Cover Procedure, due to the pendency of criminal case.

4. From perusal of the record, it is clear that legal question involved in the present case has already been decided by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.V. Janki Raman , AIR 1991 SC 2010.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned standing counsel for State-respondents and upon perusal of record, the Court finds that it is an undisputed fact that irrespective of pendency of criminal case, petitioner has been allowed to continue. Therefore, mere pendency of a criminal case, prima-facie, cannot be taken as a ground to deny promotion of petitioner. The Competent Authority cannot withhold the claim of petitioner indefinitely on the ground of having adopted Sealed Cover Procedure, due to the pendency of criminal case.

6. In view of the discussion made above this writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the Competent Authority to consider the claim of petitioner for opening the Sealed Cover within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order in the light of observations made herein-above.