JUDGMENT : M.G. Uma, J. 1. Though there is a delay of 13 days in filing the appeal, we have heard Sri. S.B. Mukkannappa, learned Counsel for the appellant and Smt. H.R. Renuka, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on merits of the case with their consent. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the appellant was appointed as Assistant Statistical Officer vide order dated 27.03.2006. It is stated that disciplinary proceeding was initiated against her and 'sealed cover procedure' was adopted in her case while promoting her fellow employees. The disciplinary proceeding was concluded, finding that the appellant was guilty of causing loss of Rs. 6,000/- in purchase of certain materials and the said amount was recovered from four of the employees who were held responsible under the domestic enquiry. After conclusion of the domestic enquiry and recovery of the amount as aforesaid, the appellant was promoted to the higher cadre i.e., Assistant Statistical Officer, Class-II on 24.12.2011. 3. The grievance of the appellant is that she should have been considered for promotion with effect from 22.06.2011 on par with her fellow employees who got promoted during the pendency of the domestic enquiry initiated against her. Therefore, a representation was filed to consider her request for restoration of her seniority on par with her fellow employees who were much lower in ranking in the seniority list, but her request was turned down by issuing an endorsement dated 16.03.2013 which was assailed by the appellant by filing the writ petition. 4. The appellant assailed Annexure-A by filing Writ Petition No. 18963 of 2014 (S-KSRTC). On considering the merits of the case, the writ petition came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge which is impugned in this appeal. 5. The admitted facts of the case are that, the appellant was initially appointed as Assistant Statistical Officer and was promoted as Assistant Statistical Officer, Class-II with effect from 24.12.2011. In the meantime, her fellow employees were promoted on 22.06.2011 and 'sealed cover procedure' was adopted in the case of the appellant as the domestic enquiry regarding misconduct committed in causing loss to the Institution was pending for consideration. In the domestic enquiry, it was found that the appellant was guilty and the loss caused was recovered. Her representation for promotion was considered and subsequently, she was promoted. 6. In the domestic enquiry, it was found that the appellant was guilty and the loss caused was recovered. Her representation for promotion was considered and subsequently, she was promoted. 6. Now the short point for consideration is, 'whether the appellant is entitled for restoration of her seniority on par with her juniors who were promoted on 22.06.2011?' 7. Learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 relied on Clause-8 of the Circular bearing No. 1328 dated 04.04.2005 concerning the Corporation, according to which, if any penalty is imposed on the officer/official as a result of disciplinary proceedings, the findings in the sealed cover shall not be acted upon. 8. Learned Counsel for the appellant did not dispute this Circular. However, he contended that similarly placed official by name Sri. P. Yeshwanth Kumar who also suffered punishment of recovery of fine has been considered for promotion and therefore, on parity, the appellant is also entitled for restoration of her seniority. 9. Learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 would submit that as per Annexure-H, the promotion granted to the official Sri. P. Yeshwanth Kumar is already withdrawn and therefore, the appellant cannot now seek parity in the matter. 10. Under such circumstances, the appellant's Counsel cannot sustain his contentions. 11. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, we do not find any merit in the appeal having regard to Clause-8 of the Circular No. 1328 dated 04.04.2005, which squarely applies to the case of the appellant. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. Consequently, I.A. 1 of 2019 filed for condonation of delay also stands dismissed. No costs.