JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to include the petitioner in the ensuing panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category I) for the year 2013-2014, without reference to pending P.R.No. 24/13 and promote him to the said post, without prejudice to his rights, to claim promotion from an earlier date depending upon the outcome of W.P.Nos.15094, 15833-15835 of 2009/Crl. R.C. No. 544 of 2012/ P.R.Nos. 53/07, 1/08, 12/08, 78/08, 24/13 and by place him above the 4th respondent.) 1. The writ petition is filed, seeking a direction to include the name of the writ petitioner in the panel of the year 2013-2014, for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police in (Category-I) and consequently promote him on par with his junior. 2. The petitioner is working as Inspector of Police. He was directly appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police on 28.09.1987. 3. The grievances of the writ petitioner is that due for promotion to the post Deputy Superintendent of Police in the panel of the year 2013-2014, his name was not considered for promotion in accordance with the seniority and thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the punishment imposed against the writ petitioner had expired and therefore, no currency during the relevant period of time. Therefore, the petitioner is to be considered for the promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. 5. The learned Additional Advocate General objected the said contention by stating that beyond the punishment imposed in respect of several disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner, a criminal case was registered against him under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the said criminal case was pending during the relevant point of time, when the panel of the year 2013-2014 was accrued by the Government. That apart, the petitioner was convicted in the criminal case registered against him under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which was imposed with the punishment of imprisonment of three years. 6. This being the fatum established, the relief as such sought for cannot be granted. Further, during the relevant point of time, when the panel was prepared, the criminal case was pending against the petitioner. 6. This being the fatum established, the relief as such sought for cannot be granted. Further, during the relevant point of time, when the panel was prepared, the criminal case was pending against the petitioner. Therefore, as per the Rules in force, the name of the writ petitioner was not considered in accordance with the procedures and there is no infirmity as such. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.