The Allahabad High Court directed respondents to open the petitioner's sealed cover and consider his promotion claim as Head Constable within eight weeks.
Direction to open the sealed cover envelop and consider the petitioner's promotion claim within eight weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 33 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21035 of 2022
Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard Shri Ravindra Prakash Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the Staterespondents.
By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs:
"i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to open the seal cover envelop and promote the petitioner on the post of Head Constable on the date from which the juniors to the petitioner have been granted promotion, in pursuance of the Government Order No.13/21/89-Ka-1-1997 dated 28.05.1997 and Government Order No.1/2018-13(6)/2017/Ka-1-2018 dated 09.01.2018, which has been issued under the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Case of Union of India vs. K.V. Janki Raman, AIR 1991 SC 2010 with all consequential benefits within stipulated period.
ii). issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Head Constable, on the date from which the juniors to the petitioner have been granted promotion, in pursuance of the Government Order No.13/21/89-Ka-1-1997 dated 28.05.1997 and Government Order No.1/2018-13(6)/2017/Ka-1-2018 dated 09.01.2018, which has been issued under the directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Case of Union of India vs. K.V. Janki Raman, AIR 1991 SC 2010 with all consequential benefits within stipulated period."
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was selected and appointed on the post of Constable on 30.06.2005 in the Uttar Pradesh Police Department. The petitioner has completed more than 18 years of service and is eligible for consideration of his promotion on the post of Head Constable.
It has further been submitted that in the last 18 years of service, there is no adverse order / punishment, which has been passed against the petitioner. However, the case of the petitioner for promotion has not been considered solely on the ground of pendency of the criminal case bearing Case Crime No.886 of 2016, under Section 223 IPC, P.S. Kotwali, District Basti, in which charge-sheet has been illegally filed on 13.11.2016 and the learned Magistrate also took cognizance and summoned the petitioner by means of the order dated 02.02.2017 and a case
was registered against the petitioner bearing Case No.763/2017 (State v. Kamlesh Majhi and others).
It has also been pointed out that being aggrieved, the petitioner and one another filed a Criminal Misc. Application No.6890 of 2019 (Anil Kumar and another v. State of U.P. and another) under Section 482, which came to be disposed of by means of the order dated 21.02.2019.
It is submitted that earlier a final seniority list was issued by the respondents-authorities in which the name of the petitioner has been mentioned at S.No.10401 and there is no any entry against the petitioner. It is further submitted that on 08.08.2022, another final seniority list was issued by the respondents in which the name of the petitioner has been mentioned at S.No.3251 and an entry 'Sealed Cover 2017' has been mentioned against the petitioner.
It is also submitted that the petitioner has not been considered merely on account of pendency of the Criminal Case and the petitioner cannot be held up indefinitely from being considered for promotion.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. K.V. Janki Raman, AIR 1991 SC 2010 wherein the Apex Court has issued guidelines in regard to seal cover envelop. This aspect has also been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kumari Maya (Mahalla Constable) vs. State of U.P. and others (2011) 5 ADJ 818 .
In view of the aforesaid decision as well as the Government Orders dated 28.05.1997 and 09.01.2018, which are applicable. This Court at this stage, does not think it proper to call for a counter affidavit or the instructions rather is of the opinion since the law is well settled in the light of two decisions and without entering into the merits or expressing any opinion on the claim of the petitioner, the Court disposes of the petition with a direction to the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner by opening seal cover envelop in light of the Government Orders and in light of the decision as noticed herein above as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date a copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned.
With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of .
Order Date :- 3.2.2023 Rakesh/-
Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be directed to have his sealed cover opened for promotion consideration by the authorities.
Whether the petitioner can be held up indefinitely for promotion due to the pendency of a criminal case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India vs. K.V. Janki RamanReferred¶14
Union of India vs. K.V. Janki Raman, AIR 1991 SC 2010 · Who else cites this
Kumari Maya (Mahalla Constable) vs. State of U.P. and othersReferred¶14
Kumari Maya (Mahalla Constable) vs. State of U.P. and others (2011) 5 ADJ 818
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Anil Kumar
State Of U.P.
Jaspreet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
