Disposed¶24

Bachchu Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC4 May 2026WRIA/4651/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sealed cover procedure; promotion withheld due to pendency of criminal case; direction to consider opening sealed cover within two months; Writ A No. 4651 of 2026; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Prakash Padia, J.; Bachchu Singh v. State of U.P.; Union of India vs. K.V. Janki Raman, AIR 1991 SC 2010; Neeraj Kumar Pandey v. State of U.P., Writ A No. 8151 of 2022; Writ A No. 15474 of 2024; Deputy Police Commissioner, Ghaziabad Commissionerate; U/S 482 Cr.P.C. (referenced within quoted excerpt of earlier judgment).

What did the court decide?

Direction to the Competent Authority to consider the claim of the petitioner for opening the Sealed Cover within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, in the light of the observations made in the judgment. ¶24

Bachchu Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether, on account of pendency of a criminal case and adoption of the Sealed Cover Procedure, the Competent Authority can withhold the petitioner's claim for promotion, and whether a direction should issue to consider opening the Sealed Cover.

¶23

Court's answer

It is an undisputed fact that irrespective of pendency of the criminal case, the petitioner has been allowed to continue; therefore, mere pendency of a criminal case, prima-facie, cannot be taken as a ground to deny promotion.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

The Competent Authority cannot withhold the claim of the petitioner indefinitely on the ground of having adopted the Sealed Cover Procedure due to the pendency of the criminal case.

¶23

Key takeaways

The writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the Competent Authority to consider the claim of the petitioner for opening the Sealed Cover within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, in the light of the observations made.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Prakash Padia, J.) disposed of a writ petition by three petitioners whose promotion claim was kept in sealed cover owing to pendency of a criminal case. Holding that mere pendency of a criminal case, prima-facie, cannot be a ground to deny promotion where the petitioner has been allowed to continue, and that the Competent Authority cannot withhold the claim indefinitely under the Sealed Cover Procedure, the Court directed the Competent Authority to consider the claim for opening the Sealed Cover within two months of production of a certified copy of the order. The Court noted that the legal question stood decided by the Supreme Court in Union of India vs. K.V. Janki Raman, AIR 1991 SC 2010, and counsel relied on paragraphs 16 and 17 of Neeraj Kumar Pandey Vs. State of U.P. (Writ A No.8151 of 2022, decided 26.05.2022); compliance with the order in Writ A No.15474 of 2024 (dated 18.02.2025) by similarly situated persons via consequential order dated 19.04.2025 of the Deputy Police Commissioner, Ghaziabad Commissionerate, was also pointed out.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 4651 of 2026

¶3

Bachchu Singh And 2 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 4 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nisheeth Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 6

¶10

HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

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:-

¶14

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

¶15

WRIA No. 4651 of 2026

¶16

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

WRIA No. 4651 of 2026

¶22

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

May 5, 2026

¶26

saqlain

¶27

(Prakash Padia,J.)

¶28

Digitally signed by :- SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Bachchu Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bachchu Singh and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Subhash Chandra @ Subhash Chandra Shakya vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ram Babu Verma vs State of Up and 2 Others

Rajpal Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shiv Shankar Richhariya Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sarita Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vipin Kumar Rathore Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others