the applicant was kept in a sealed cover. This is in fact contrary to the actual facts, since admittedly the applicant was not considered for reason of having not completed 17 years eligibility period. The Division Bench further held that as per the order of the Tribunal, the consideration of the applicant for the post of UDC(SG) should be taken up by opening the sealed cover and making it known to him since disciplinary proceedings no more survive. As far as promotion to the post of Assistant, a review DPC was directed to be held. Hence, the directions in the judgment at Annexure-A2 is very clear. One is to open the sealed cover and publish the recommendation of the DPC held on 14.09.1999 and the other is consideration of applicant for promotion as an Assistant, as per the DPC held on 4.4.2000. In fact, the first direction could not have been complied with since there was no sealed cover procedure adopted on 14.09.1999 with respect to the applicant. The applicant also raise no contention as to opening of sealed cover, obviously for reason of he being conscious of his ineligibility at that point of time. The entire controversy arising, from the issue agitated thereafter was as to the date of DPC for promotion
