JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the promotion of the petitioner for the post of Materials Manager in Chennai Port Authority without taking into account the pendency of both criminal prosecution in C.C.No.5 of 2019 on the file of XIV Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Madras and Disciplinary Proceedings vide No.V4/264/2017/Vide dated 25.07.2019 by keeping the name of the petitioner in a sealed cover for the above post if he is otherwise found eligible for such promotion within time frame.) 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for a Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Materials Manager in Chennai Port Trust without taking into account the pendency of both criminal prosecution in C.C.No.5 of 2019 on the file of the XIV Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai and disciplinary proceedings vide No.V4/264/2017/vide dated 25.07.2019 by keeping the name of the petitioner in a sealed cover for the above post, if he is otherwise found eligible for such promotion within a time frame. 2. The petitioner joined the Chennai Port Trust [in short "CPT"] in the year 1994 as Assistant Controller of Stores and in the year 1994, he was promoted as Deputy Materials Manager and further promoted as Senior Deputy Materials Manager in Chennai Port Trust in October, 2015 and since then, he is working as Senior Deputy Materials Manager at CPT. In the year 2016, based on an anonymous petition, CBI registered an FIR against the petitioner and 7 others alleging that the reserve price fixed at Rs.400/- per MT was very low in respect of auction of accumulated and unclaimed residual iron and it should have been fixed at Rs.1218/- per MT. In the said criminal case, CBI has filed a Charge Sheet and the same was taken cognizance in C.C.No.5/2019 on the file of the XIV Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai. 3. According to the petitioner, he has 6 more years of service left before his superannuation and he stands first in the seniority list in Materials Management Division in the post of Senior Deputy Materials Manager, which is the feeder category to the promotional post of "Materials Manager". 3. According to the petitioner, he has 6 more years of service left before his superannuation and he stands first in the seniority list in Materials Management Division in the post of Senior Deputy Materials Manager, which is the feeder category to the promotional post of "Materials Manager". On 23.03.2022, the second respondent has called for applications to the post of Materials Manager, giving last date of applying as 06.05.2022. The petitioner applied for the said post through online on 24.04.2022. During the year 2019, the second respondent called for applications for the same post and appointed a junior to the petitioner and since the petitioner is facing criminal prosecution and disciplinary proceedings on the same set of allegations with more or less same witnesses, he was denied promotion on that ground. Now, the applications were called for the same post for the second time and citing the very same reason, the petitioner was denied promotion. 4. According to the petitioner, the respondent and other members of selection committee are rushing up the appointment by trying to appoint his junior and as regards the disciplinary proceedings on the same set of facts and with same witnesses, this Court vide order dated 19.12.2019 has granted an order of interim stay in WMP.No.36071 of 2019 in W.P.No.35273 of 2019. As regards criminal prosecution, this Court has reserved orders in Crl.Rc.No.202 of 2022. In the previous selection, the petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.2497 of 2020 praying for a Mandamus to keep his selection in a sealed cover and while the said writ petition is pending, the respondents issued an appointment order to his junior Mr.M.Vishwanath for the post of Materials Manager, stating that his appointment is without prejudice to the case in W.P.No.2497/2020 filed by the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. The respondents has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 18.07.2019 in connection with the criminal case registered by CBI, ACB, Chennai on the irregularities relating to e-auction sale of top layer of iron ore fines in CHPT and the case is under trial. Hence, the present writ petition. 5. The respondents has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 18.07.2019 in connection with the criminal case registered by CBI, ACB, Chennai on the irregularities relating to e-auction sale of top layer of iron ore fines in CHPT and the case is under trial. The petitioner has filed W.P.No.35273 of 2019 before this Court and obtained interim stay on 19.12.2019 against the disciplinary proceedings initiated on him and as such, the disciplinary proceedings are sub-judice and still pending and the petitioner's suspension was reviewed last on 27.12.2021 and extended upto 30.06.2022. Since the disciplinary action was pending against him, the petitioner was not cleared from vigilance and moreover, selection was through composite method based on merit and not based on seniority basis, as stated by the petitioner. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that as per Rules, only for promotion the findings of DPC consideration will be kept in a sealed cover and the above post was not filled up by promotion and filled by composite method of recruitment based on merit and therefore, the question of keeping it in a sealed cover does not arise. The selection will be purely on merit basis and as per the Recruitment Regulations prescribed in the CHPT (RSP) Regulations, 2008 and there exists only one post. 6. Mr.K.Raviananthapadmanaban, learned counsel for the petitioner made the following submissions: (i) Regulation 27 of the Chennai Port Trust says that when appointment to the post is through a selection method, the DPC shall be constituted and it shall be based on ACR reports as fit or unfit and for those in higher cadre, it should be “very good”. Regulation 27 does not distinguish between promotion post and selection post. (ii) Chennai Port Trust is governed by DOPT Guidelines and procedures only and if a Government Servant is issued with a Charge Sheet and when disciplinary proceedings are pending, his candidature shall be placed in a sealed cover and if so done, it will enable such an employee to claim the notional benefit of seniority in the event of acquittal in a prosecution / exoneration in disciplinary proceedings. (iii) In case the petitioner's case is kept in a sealed cover, he can atleast claim notional seniority without arrears, so that he will receive proper pensionary benefits and no prejudice would be caused to the respondent in keeping his name in a sealed cover while selecting candidates for the above post of Materials Manager. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the entire materials placed on record. 8. The fact remains that the petitioner stands first in the seniority list in Materials Management Division in the post of Senior Deputy Materials Manager, which is the feeder category to the promotional post of "Materials Manager". The second respondent has called for applications to the post of Materials Manager, vide notification dated 23.03.2022, giving last date of applying as 06.05.2022 and the petitioner applied for the said post through online on 24.04.2022. 9. It is the grievance of the petitioner he was denied promotion for the second time citing the reason that he is facing criminal prosecution and disciplinary proceedings on the same set of allegations. The candidature of the petitioner for promotion as Materials Manager was earlier rejected by the respondents and challenging the same, he had filed W.P.No.2497 of 2020 for a Mandamus to keep his selection in a sealed cover, however, while the said writ petition is pending, the respondents issued an appointment order to his Junior Mr.M.Viswanath for the post of Materials Manager, subject to the outcome of the said writ petition. Now the said Mr.M.Viswanath is going to retire shortly and for the said post the petitioner has applied, but it was rejected on the very same reason of pendency of criminal prosecution. 10. It is stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit that even though the petitioner applied for the post of Materials Manager during 2020, he is placed under suspension from 18.07.2019 and he did not clear the criminal case registered by vigilance department and since the post of Materials Manager is to be filled by composite method of recruitment based on merit, the question of sealed cover procedure does not arise and all the posts in CPT are filled duly adhering to administrative procedures and rules and regulations and further, the post of Materials Manager, being a single post, cannot be kept vacant for completion of both criminal case and disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 11. 11. The petitioner is now facing disciplinary proceedings, vide issuance of Charge Memo on 25.07.2019 and in the criminal case, charge sheet has been filed in C.C.No.5/2019 on the file of the XIV Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Chennai. According to the petitioner, CPT is governed by DOPT guidelines and procedures, which stipulates that if a Government Servant is issued with a charge sheet and when disciplinary proceedings are pending, his candidature shall be placed in a sealed cover and if done so, it will enable him to claim notional benefit of seniority in the event of acquittal in a prosecution / exoneration in disciplinary proceedings. 12. The respondents have specifically denied the averments of the petitioner and stated in the counter affidavit that as per Rules, only for promotion, the findings of DPC regarding promotion of officers under suspension who come under the zone of consideration will be kept in a sealed cover and the post of Materials Manager is not filled up by promotion and filled by composite method of recruitment based on merit and therefore, the question of keeping it in a sealed cover does not arise. Further the selection of Materials Manager is done by Services Selection Committee (SSC) from eligible officers of all Major Port Authorities through composite method based on Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) and APAR, Vigilance Clearance etc., but on the basis of seniority as stated by the petitioner and only based on Recruitment Regulations as specified in the Chennai Port Authority Employees (RSP) Regulations and other rules in force, selection will be made by the Services Selection Committee. 13. Thus, the post of Materials Manager is filled by the respondents only by composite method of recruitment through selection based on merit and not through promotion, as claimed by the petitioner and as such, the claim of the petitioner to place his candidature in a sealed cover does not arise. The applicability of the guidelines issued by DOPT dated 02.11.2012 enclosed in the typed set of documents relied on by the petitioner the comprehensive guidelines pertaining to vigilance clearance for promotion does not arise, as the post of Materials Manager is being filled up selection through composite method of recruitment and not through promotion and therefore, the contention of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. 14. 14. In the light of the above discussions, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, the Writ Petition Stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.