Delayed criminal cognizance cannot bar retrospective promotion if eligibility and vacancies existed prior to such proceedings.

The twelve petitioners, appointed via the first JPSC batch (Advertisement No. 11/2002-03), sought promotion from the rank of Additional Collector (Level-12) to Joint Secretary (Level-13).

Although eligible since 2023 with vacancies available, their promotions were stalled due to a pending CBI case (RC-05(A)/2012) relating to their initial recruitment.

While the CBI gave them a "clean chit" and did not charge-sheet them, the Trial Court took cognizance of the matter on January 16, 2025.

Meanwhile, juniors to the petitioners were promoted in March 2025.

The State argued that promotions were withheld pending legal opinion on whether the "sealed cover" procedure applies where cognizance is taken despite the absence of a formal charge-sheet.

1. Whether the petitioners’ promotion could be legally delayed or denied due to a criminal case where cognizance was taken years after they became eligible and where no charge-sheet was filed against them.

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to the same relief granted to similarly situated employees in previous litigation.

The court primarily applied Article 16 of the Constitution regarding equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.

It relied on the precedent set in State of Punjab v. Chaman Lal Goyal (1995) 2 SCC 570, which allows for the promotion of employees despite pending proceedings under certain equitable circumstances to avoid prejudice.

It further adhered to the principle of parity by following the coordinate bench decision in W.P.(S) No. 3328 of 2025, which dealt with identical facts arising from the same recruitment scanner.

The Court observed that the petitioners were eligible for promotion in 2023, a time when no criminal case or cognizance was pending against them.

The delay by the State in holding the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) until 2025—after cognizance was eventually taken—was found to be prejudicial.

The Court noted that the petitioners had not been charge-sheeted by the CBI after a decade of investigation, and the allegations related to their entry into service, which had already been scrutinized in prior litigation.

Since the State did not contest the petitioners' merit or the availability of vacancies in 2023, the Court held that the subsequent cognizance in January 2025 should not act as an absolute bar to promotions that should have crystallized earlier, especially since the criminal trial was expected to be prolonged.

The Court directed the Respondent-State to: (a) recalculate vacancies as of December 22, 2023; (b) consider the petitioners for promotion to Joint Secretary against those vacancies; and (c) grant promotion and consequential benefits if found suitable/eligible prior to any charge-sheet. The exercise must be completed within 12 weeks.