Tarun Agarwala, J.— Heard Sri Ravindera Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the State. The petitioner is a Constable and applied for promotion to the post of Head Constable. In this regard the petitioner appeared in the written examination of the State Eligibility Examination 2006, in which he was declared successful. The authorities thereafter called the petitioner for I.T./P.T. test, in which the petitioner appeared and was again declared successful. The petitioner was thereafter called for an interview in which he appeared. The authorities declared the final result and, against his name, a remark was mentioned "sealed cover". The petitioner came to know that the reason for keeping his result in a sealed cover was that he was implicated in case crime No.483 of 2003, registered at Police Station Sahjanva, District Gorakhpur. The petitioner, being aggrieved by his selection being kept in a sealed cover, has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus. A counter affidavit has been filed in which the aforesaid facts have been admitted. A rejoinder affidavit has also been filed indicating that the petitioner has now been acquitted in that criminal case by an order of the Criminal Court dated 20.7.2012. In the light of the aforesaid admitted facts, the Court finds that on the date when the petitioner was being considered for promotion, he was not placed under suspension nor any departmental proceedings were initiated against him. Consequently, if his name was found meritorious and suitable, his name was required to be brought on the select list and the sealed cover procedure could not be adopted on the ground that a criminal case was pending against him. This view of the Court is fortified by a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. Dr. Sudha Salhan (Smt.) 1998 (3) SCC 394 . The Court is of the view that the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee can only be placed in a sealed cover only where the departmental proceedings had been initiated or were pending. In the instant case, the Court finds, that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner has also been concluded and the petitioner has been exonerated. The Court is of the view that the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee can only be placed in a sealed cover only where the departmental proceedings had been initiated or were pending. In the instant case, the Court finds, that the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner has also been concluded and the petitioner has been exonerated. In the light of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and a writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to open the sealed cover of the petitioner and act accordingly within three weeks' from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order. _____________