JUDGMENT V.N. Khare, J. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Since counter and rejoinder affidavits are exchanged. Learned counsel for the parties jointly prayed that the writ petition may be finally disposed of at the admission stage. We, therefore propose to decide this petition finally at the admission stage. 3. The petitioner's husband, Bir Singh, was a teacher in Adarsh Vedic Inter College, Karora, District Bulandshahr, which is a Government aided institution. On 17th September, 1985 Bir Singh died. After his death Vimla Devi alias Vimlesh, who is the petitioner in this writ petition, moved to the Education Authorities as well as to respondent no. 2 for giving her job in view of the Government Order dated 23rd September, 1981. Since the Government Order provides for giving job to such widow on compassionate ground, the Deputy Director of Education directed the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr for taking steps for giving appointment to the petitioner on the post of Clerk in the institution. In the meantime the Principal of the Institution promoted Satpal Singh respondent no. 5, to the post of Clerk. Since the vacancy was filled up, the petitioner was compelled to file this petition in this court. 4. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner was entitled to be appointed on the post of Clerk, the appointment of respondent no. 5 by promotion to that post was illegal. The argument has merit. It is alleged in the writ petition that the post of Clerk in the institution was meant to be filled up by direct recruitment and was also vacant when the petitioner applied for appointment to the said post but the Principal of the institution in order to frustrate the appointment of the petitioner, promoted respondent no. 5. These allegations have not been denied in the counter affidavit. 5. In view of the fact that, the petitioner possessed the requisite qualification and otherwise also was entitled to Ire appointed to the post of Clerk, the respondents nos. 1 and 2 acted illegally in promoting respondent no. 5 to the post of Clerk. 6. We, therefore, quash the promotion of respondent no. 5 to the post of Clerk and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Clerk in the Institution. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 then urged that respondent no. 1 and 2 acted illegally in promoting respondent no. 5 to the post of Clerk. 6. We, therefore, quash the promotion of respondent no. 5 to the post of Clerk and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Clerk in the Institution. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 then urged that respondent no. 5 is also entitled to be promoted in the near future when a vacancy in the post of clerk is likely to occur. If it is so, the case of respondent no. 5 shall be considered by the Managing Committee for promotion to that post. 8. With these observations the petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.