JUDGMENT : - Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J. (Oral) This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 4th November, 2011, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby writ petition filed by petitioner (respondent No.1 herein) was allowed and the writ respondents i.e. The Board of Director of H.P. State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd., (appellants herein), were directed to consider the case of the writ petitioner for promotion to the higher post after opening the sealed cover (for short, the impugned judgment). 2. The writ respondents-Federation, feeling aggrieved, have questioned the impugned judgment by the medium of this appeal on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 3. It appears that the petitioner was facing departmental inquiry and during the departmental inquiry, the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short, the DPC) was constituted and his case was considered for promotion, but was kept in a sealed cover vide resolution, dated 25th/27th June, 2002, made by the appellants. After the inquiry was completed, penalty of censure was imposed upon the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner requested the writ respondents-Federation to open the sealed cover and consider his case for promotion. The writ respondents i.e. the appellants have failed to do so, constraining the writ petitioner to file the writ petition praying for the following main reliefs, on the grounds taken in the memo of writ petition: “1. That the impugned office order dated 20.3.2007 contained in Annexure A-15 whereby the Applicant has been imposed the penalty of censure and warning may kindly be quashed and set aside declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of mandatory provisions of procedure law. The respondents may be further directed to grant consequential benefits. 2. That the order dated 11.7.2007 at Annexure A-17 passed by the Additional Registrar (Administration), Cooperative Societies, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla may also be quashed and set-aside being not maintainable. 3. That the directions be issued to the Respondents to consider the case of the applicant for promotion to the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts) from the date his case for promotion has been kept in sealed cover i.e. 25/27.6.2002; 4. To further issue directions to the Respondents to grant to the Applicant proficiency step up increments which fallen due from 17.7.1992 and 17.7.2000, under the Assured Career Progression Scheme; 5. To further issue directions to the Respondents to grant to the Applicant proficiency step up increments which fallen due from 17.7.1992 and 17.7.2000, under the Assured Career Progression Scheme; 5. To command the respondents to allow the arrears of pay and allowances arising out of grant of promotion and proficiency step up increments alongwith interest @ 12% per annum;” 4. Writ respondents resisted the writ petition. 5. The Writ Court, after considering the rival contentions of the parties, directed the writ respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the higher rank after opening the sealed cover. It is apt to reproduce operative paragraph of the impugned judgment hereunder: “9. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Respondent-Federation is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the higher post after opening the sealed cover and in case he has been recommended, he will be entitled to all the consequential benefits from the due date. Needful be done within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. No costs.” 6. The main ground of attack of the appellants is that the departmental inquiry was drawn against the writ petitioner, was found guilty and penalty of censure was imposed upon him. Thus, the writ petitioner was not entitled to promotion. 7. Therefore, the only question, which remains for consideration is whether the Writ Court has rightly directed the writ respondents to open the sealed cover and consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the higher post. It is clear from a perusal of the impugned judgment that the learned Single Judge has considered instruction 16.13 contained in Chapter 16 of the Hand Book on Personnel Matters Volume-I (Second Edn.), which provides that imposition of minor penalty of censure does not stand against consideration of the case of such person for promotion. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of instruction 16.13 hereunder: “16.13 Minor penalties do not constitute a bar to eligibility and consideration for promotion. The imposition of minor penalty of censure does not by itself stand against the consideration of such person for promotion…………………” 8. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of instruction 16.13 hereunder: “16.13 Minor penalties do not constitute a bar to eligibility and consideration for promotion. The imposition of minor penalty of censure does not by itself stand against the consideration of such person for promotion…………………” 8. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the appellants has also argued that in view of the judgments of the Apex Court, in Union of India and others vs. A.N. Mohanan, (2007) 5 SCC 425 and Union of India and others vs. Mihir Kumar Bandopadhyay and others, (2009) 16 SCC 329 , the direction given by the learned Single Judge to consider the case of the petitioner by opening the sealed cover is not legally correct and at the best, the case of the writ petitioner could be considered for promotion in the next DPC. 9. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants are distinguishable for the simple reason that instruction 16.13 (supra) was not part of the rules/instructions which were considered in those judgments. Instruction 16.13 (supra), at the cost of repetition, specifically provides that imposition of minor penalty of censure does not stand against considering the case of such person for promotion, but is to be considered after opening the sealed cover read with entire service record. Therefore, no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the Writ Court. 10. Having said so, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the appellants and the same is dismissed.