JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. H.S. Ahluwalia, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr. Shikhar Shukla, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.4. 2. This appeal is presented against an order dated 06.05.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.3247 of 2022. The order of the learned Single Judge reads as follows : “1. The petitioner seems to be aggrieved of the action on the part of the respondents in keeping the recommendation of the DPC so far as the petitioner is concerned for promotion from the post of Assistant Superintendent of Prison to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Prison in a sealed cover. 2. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner concedes the fact that the petitioner is facing a departmental enquiry and the departmental enquiry is still going on against the petitioner. 3. Given the fact that the petitioner concedes the pending disciplinary proceedings against him, the action on the part of the respondents in placing the recommendation so far as the petitioner’s prospects in a sealed cover, cannot be held to be bad in any manner. The petitioner would have a right to raise his claim for the said promotional post subject to the outcome of the said departmental enquiry. 4. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.” 3. The appellant is presently holding the post of Assistant Superintendent of Prison and he is seeking promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Prison. A meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (‘DPC’) was held on 14.01.2022 and in the said meeting, DPC recommended that name of the appellant be kept in sealed cover because of pendency of departmental proceedings against him. 4. Mr. Soni submits that the departmental proceedings were initiated on false accusations. He also submits that there are similar allegations against respondents No. 12 and 13. However, no departmental proceedings have been drawn against them. 5. The writ petition was filed praying for setting aside the recommendation made by the DPC in its meeting held on 14.01.2022 insofar as it related to keeping the name of the appellant in a sealed cover. Prayer was also made to issue appropriate direction for grant of promotion to the appellant. 6. 5. The writ petition was filed praying for setting aside the recommendation made by the DPC in its meeting held on 14.01.2022 insofar as it related to keeping the name of the appellant in a sealed cover. Prayer was also made to issue appropriate direction for grant of promotion to the appellant. 6. There is no challenge to the charge-sheets issued to the appellant in the present case, and therefore, this Court will refrain from making any comment with regard to the pending departmental proceedings. 7. At this juncture, it is submitted by Mr. Soni that the appellant has now instituted a writ petition challenging the charge-sheets. 8. Having regard to the prayers made, no occasion arises for the Court to comment upon the submissions advanced qua respondents No.12 and 13. 9. In the case of Union of India and Others v. K.V. Jankiraman and Others reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down that sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to while considering promotion only when the departmental proceedings are initiated by issuance of charge-memo / charge-sheet. 10. In that view of the matter, we find no good ground to take a view other than the view taken by the learned Single Judge, and therefore, finding no merit, writ appeal is dismissed. No cost.