- (1.) To challenge the order dated 3.3.2014, passed by learned Single Bench in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3823/2013, this appeal is preferred. By the order aforesaid learned Single Bench while admitting the writ petition passed an interim order in the terms that "by way of interim relief, it is directed that the promotions in pursuance of the DPC meeting held on 28.12.2012 shall remain subject to final decision of the present writ petition and subject to that, the sealed cover of the petitioner may be opened by the respondents and if the petitioner is found otherwise eligible to be promoted, he may be so promoted".
(2.) The facts necessary to be noticed are that the respondent petitioner while holding the post of Assistant Engineer in public Works Department of the Government of Rajasthan was found to be involved in some corruption practices, thus, two criminal cases were lodged against him for the offences punishable under sections 13(1)(d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Sections 467, 468, 471, 409 and 120-B, Indian Penal Code. Out of two cases mentioned above the respondent petitioner came to be acquitted after undergoing trial. In other case the authority competent granted necessary sanction for prosecution of the respondent petitioner and he was also placed under suspension by an order dated 26.5.2009. The respondent petitioner by way of filing a petition for writ (SBCWP No. 7559/2010) challenged the order passed by the authority competent granting sanction for prosecution and by an order dated 13.8.2010 Single Bench of this Court stayed the order granting prosecution sanction and also the order placing the petitioner under suspension. During pendency of the writ petition aforesaid a Departmental Promotion Committee met on 28.12.2012 to consider candidature of eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer. The candidature of the petitioner too was considered by the Departmental Promotion Committee but the recommendations made in relation to him were kept in sealed cover due to pendency of a criminal case pertaining to the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Being aggrieved by the same the respondent petitioner preferred a petition for writ wherein the order impugned has been passed.
(3.) The submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that the order impugned deserves to be quashed on several counts including that- (1) no opportunity was given to the respondents even to file a reply to the stay petition; (2) the order passed is of a mandatory nature and that amounts to acceptance of the writ petition without adjudication on merits; (3) the candidature of the respondent petitioner was considered by Departmental Promotion Committee and the recommendations thereof were kept in sealed cover in accordance with the settled procedure of law; and (4) the Court made all the promotions accorded in pursuant to the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee that met on 28.12.2012, though the persons promoted are not party to the writ proceedings.;