Judgment :- N.K.Jain, J. The miscellaneous petition, W.M.P.No.21325 of 1999 vacating stay order, came for consideration. As agreed to by the learned counsel, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The writ petition has been filed against the order of the Tribunal made in Original Application No.828 of 1998, dated 17. 1999, dismissing the application of the petitioner, in which he challenged the order of reversion dated 9. 1998 passed against him and four others, however, directed to expedite the enquiry. 3. It is alleged that the petitioner belongs to Indian Revenue Service and was promoted as Commissioner of Income Tax on ad hoc basis by order dated 19. 1997. The Departmental Promotion Committee (in short ‘DPC’) was convened on 14. 1998 and recommended a panel for promotion, including the petitioner herein, but on account of the issuance of a charge memo on 6. 1998, the case of petitioner was not considered for promotion by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (in short ‘ACC’). Petitioner was reverted to the grade of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax by order dated 9. 1998. Challenging the same, the petitioner preferred O.A.No.828 of 1997, which was dismissed, as stated above. As such the petitioner is before this Court. On 17. 1999, while issuing notice, interim order was granted. 4. The main grievance of the petitioner is that no charge was framed against him nor was there any disciplinary proceedings pending at the time of DPC held in the month of April, 1998 and that because of the issuance of charge sheet on 6. 1998, which was subsequent to the convening of DPc, the petitioner was denied promotion and in such circumstances, the procedure of keeping the recommendation in sealed cover basis should not have been adopted in his case. According to the petitioner the Tribunal has not followed the verdict of the Supreme Court rendered in Union of India and others v. K.V.Jankiraman and others Union of India and others v. K.V.Jankiraman and others Union of India and others v. K.V.Jankiraman and others (1993)23 A.T.C. 322 and in Union of India and others v. Dr. Sudha Salhan (Smt.) Union of India and others v. Dr. Sudha Salhan (Smt.) Union of India and others v. Dr. Sudha Salhan (Smt.) (1998)3 S.C.C. 394 . Sudha Salhan (Smt.) Union of India and others v. Dr. Sudha Salhan (Smt.) Union of India and others v. Dr. Sudha Salhan (Smt.) (1998)3 S.C.C. 394 . Learned counsel argued that the tribunal has wrongly interpreted the verdict of the Supreme Court rendered in Jankiramans case and Dr.Sudha Salhans case, as such the reversion order and the order of the learned single Judge have to be set aside. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that when no disciplinary proceedings was pending at the time of holding of DPC, the reversion of the petitioner, on the basis of the subsequent charge-sheet vide order No.126 of 1998, dated 9. 1998 is bad and illegal. It is also stated that the petitioner was working on ad hoc promotion and there is a provision to appoint him on ad hoc basis. As such the respondents may do so. 5. Mr.M.Velusamy, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion holding that , (1993)23 A.T.C. 322 and , (1998)3 S.C.C. 394 will not be applicable to the facts of the case of the petitioner as clause 7 of the office memorandum dated 11. 1988 was not specifically considered in those cases. It is further submitted that clause 2 (ii) of O.M. dated 11. 1988 deals with the case of “Government servants in respect of whom disciplinary proceedings are pending or a decision has bene taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings” and in O.M. dated 19. 1992, after taking note of Jankiramans case clause 2 (ii) was substituted by clarifying that “Government servants, in respect of whom charge-sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending, should be specifically brought to the notice of DPC”, while maintaining clause 7 which reveals that if a case arises after the recommendation of DPC, but before he is actually promoted, regarding an applicant, his case will be considered as if his case had been placed in a sealed cover by DPC. and the incumbent shall not be promoted until he is completely exonerated of the charges against him. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that since no disciplinary proceeding was pending against the petitioner his name was recommended by DPC on 14. 1998, but actually a charge sheet was served on him on 6. and the incumbent shall not be promoted until he is completely exonerated of the charges against him. It is further submitted by the learned counsel that since no disciplinary proceeding was pending against the petitioner his name was recommended by DPC on 14. 1998, but actually a charge sheet was served on him on 6. 1998 leveling serious charges pertaining to the period May, 1992 to September, 1994 and in such circumstances, the ACC has not considered the case of the petitioner as he is not entitled to get promotion and rightly has not given the promotion. It is further submitted that the petitioner was promoted by order dated 19. 1997 only on ad hoc basis and he cannot claim any right on the said promotion which was made purely on temporary basis. It is further submitted that to accommodate other candidates who were duly selected, the petitioner and 4 other were reverted and under the circumstances, the petitioner cannot challenge the impugned order of reversion dated 9. 1998. 6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides. We have carefully perused the materials placed before us including the order of the tribunal, the counter affidavit and the reply affidavit, filed by both parties before this Court, and the case laws. A perusal of , (1993)23 A.T.C. 322 reveals that clause 7 of O.M dated 11. 1988, as stated was not considered. In that case, DPC was met on 2. 1988, in which time no charge memo was served, but a charge memo was issued only on 3. 1989 and in such circumstances, it was observed that the procedure of putting the results in sealed cover cannot be adopted, meaning thereby as it was not so matured for want of giving any charge sheet or initiation of the disciplinary proceedings at the time of convening DPC for consideration of the case for promotion and therefore the tribunal was rightly observed to open the sealed cover as observed by their Lordships in those cases. But in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it is seen that clause 7 was considered and in view of clause 7 as stated, once charge sheet was served after the recommendation of DPC but before actually promoted, the incumbent can only be promoted after completely being exonerated of the charges. But in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand, it is seen that clause 7 was considered and in view of clause 7 as stated, once charge sheet was served after the recommendation of DPC but before actually promoted, the incumbent can only be promoted after completely being exonerated of the charges. Under the circumstances, in our view, the tribunal has rightly distinguished the decisions rendered in , (1993)23 A.T.C. 322 and , (1998)3 S.C.C. 394 . The decision in Bank of India and another v. Degala Suryanarayana J.T. (1999)4 S.C. 489 is also not helpful to the facts of the present case. It is also revealed from the order of the tribunal, that against the charge sheet the petitioner has filed an appeal and the same was also dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show that any right is vested on the petitioner to challenge the order of the reversion, as admittedly his promotion was only ad hoc and as per the terms of the order dated 19. 1997, it is clear that his promotion will not create any right on him. In our humble view, the petitioner, while challenging the reversion order, cannot taken advantage of the cases cited above, as stated clause 7 of O.M. dated 11. 1988/19. 1992 was not at all considered as pointed out by the tribunal. 7. So far as the argument that the petitioner may be granted ad hoc promotion which is permissible in Rule is concerned. we are of the view, even if it is so, no direction as prayed for can be granted by this Court. Under these circumstances and in view of what had been discussed above, we find no error or illegality in the order of the tribunal so as to call for any interference. This writ petition fails and accordingly it is dismissed. Interim order discharged. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.Nos. 17385 and 21325 of 1999 are closed.