The petitioner, an Assistant Executive Engineer,

working in the 2^nd respondent-Karnataka Housing

Board (for short 8the KHB9) is before this Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ

of certiorari to quash the endorsement (Annexure-R)

bearing No.Ka Grama/Adalitha/C.Sha-1/PR/2021-22

dated 15.02.2022 and for a direction to the respondents

to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion to

the post of Executive Engineer by opening the sealed

cover and grant him retrospective promotion from the

date his juniors were promoted on 01.07.2021 vide

Annexure-N and to grant all consequential benefits.

2.

Heard Sri Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Sri Manu K, learned counsel for respondents

3

2 and 3 as well as Sri T.P. Srinivas, learned Principal

Government Advocate for the 1^st respondent. Perused

the writ petition papers.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit

that petitioner is working as Assistant Executive

Engineer in the 2^nd respondent-KHB and he is qualified

and eligible for promotion to the next higher cadre i.e.,

Executive Engineer. The Departmental Promotion

Committee (for short 8the DPC9) meeting was held on

25.06.2021 to consider the cases of the petitioner and

others, for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer.

In the DPC proceedings of 25.06.2021, the case of the

petitioner was put in sealed cover by following the

procedure laid down in Official Memorandum dated

14.07.1993 (Annexure-S), on the ground that a

departmental enquiry against the petitioner is pending

in charge memo dated 23.06.2021. Petitioner is said to

have submitted representation to consider his case for

promotion and when the said representation was

pending,

petitioner

was

before

this

Court

in

4

W.P.No.12331/2021. This Court by order dated

10.12.2021 disposed off the writ petition with a

direction

to

the

respondents

to

consider

the

representation of the petitioner and pass appropriate

order. Thereafter, on considering the petitioner9s

representation,

endorsement

(Annexure-R)

dated

15.02.2022 is issued, intimating the petitioner that as

the writ petition challenging the charge memo is

pending, but only stay is granted and as the Court

has not quashed the charge memo, the sealed cover

would be opened only on completion of enquiry.

4.

Sri Vijay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner

contends that as on the date of DPC i.e., on 25.06.2021,

the petitioner was not served with charge memo dated

23.06.2021. He submits that charge memo dated

23.06.2021 was served on the petitioner on 25.08.2021.

Two days before the DPC, charge was framed and the

DPC took note of the said charge, to keep the decision

in respect of the petitioner for promotion in sealed cover

by following the procedure laid down in Official

5

Memorandum dated 14.07.1993. Learned counsel

inviting attention of this Court to Official Memorandum

dated 14.07.1993 submits that sealed cover procedure

could be followed only after the date of issuance of

charge memo/charge sheet. In the instant case, the

charge sheet even though was prepared on 23.06.2021,

the charge memo was despatched from the office of the

2^nd respondent only on 01.07.2021. Therefore, learned

counsel would submit that DPC could not have taken

note of charge memo to follow the sealed cover

procedure in respect of the petitioner. In that regard,

learned counsel places reliance on the decision of the

Hon9ble

Apex

Court

in

DELHI

DEVELOPMENT

AUTHORITY Vs. H.C. KHURANA reported in (1993) 3 SCC

196, wherein the word 8issue9 is interpreted and held

that date of despatch would be the relevant date. Thus

he prays for allowing the writ petition.

5.

Sri Manu, learned counsel for respondents 2 and

3 would submit that since charge sheet was issued

against the petitioner on 23.06.2021, rightly the DPC

6

taking note of the charge memo followed sealed cover

procedure in its meeting held on 25.06.2021. He

submits that even though charge sheet was despatched

on 01.07.2021, t