D. S. SINHA, J. This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter called the Code, is directed against the decree and judgment of the I Additional District Judge, Allahabad dated 1st February 1982 passed in Civil Appeal No. 588 of 1981. Salik Ram v. Shambhoo Nath Agarwal and five others, whereby the decree and judgment dated 31st July, 1981 passed by the 8th Additional Munsif, Allahabad dismiss ing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant has been confirmed. 2. The plaintiff-appellant in situated in the trial court suit for perma nent injunction for restraining the defendant-respondents from directly recruit ing a Lecturer in Hindi Department of Agarwal Intermediate College, herein after referred to as the Institution. Lateron, by amendment, relief for declar ing the appointment of Hari Shankar Misra, respondent No. 6 who was directly recruited, null and void, was also claimed in the suit. The plaintiff-appellant claimed that in the vacancy on the post of Lecturer in Hindi created in October, 1977 appointment could be made only through promotion and not by direct recruitment inasmuch as forty percent of the posts of Lecturer were statutorily required to be filled up by promotion. He also claimed that he, being the only candidate having the requisite qualifications, was entitled to be promoted to the post of Lecturer in Hindi against the newly created post. 3. The claim of the plaintiff-appellant was resisted by the defendant-respondents on the ground that the statutory provisions relied upon by the plaintiff-appellant had been repealed; that the relief claimed by the plaintiff-appellant had become infructuous consequent upon the appointment of the defendant- respondent No. 6; and that the plaintiff-appellant was not a fit person to be promoted as his integrity had been found to be doubtful. Besides these pleas, certain other pleas also had been taken on behalf of the defendant-respondents. 4. The trial court cams to the conclusion that the plaintiff-appellant was not entitled for promotion to the post of Lecturer-in Hindi as his integrity was doubtful. It, therefore, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant. 5. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment of the trial court, the plaintiff-appellant preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the Code. 4. The trial court cams to the conclusion that the plaintiff-appellant was not entitled for promotion to the post of Lecturer-in Hindi as his integrity was doubtful. It, therefore, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant. 5. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment of the trial court, the plaintiff-appellant preferred an appeal under Section 96 of the Code. The appellate court has affirmed the decree and judgment of the trial court by means of the impugned decree and judgment on the findings that the plaintiff-appellant was not a fit person to be promoted and that the post in question was not available to be filled up by promotion in view of the provisions contained in Regulation 5 (2) (a) of the Regulations framed under Section, 16-A, 16-B and 16-C of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. 6. Sri Radhey Shyam, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-appellant, contends that the view taken by the court below that the post was not Available for being filed up by promotion is illegal in as much as the quota of forty per cent has to be determined with reference to the post or posts fall ing vacant. 7. Regulation 5 (2) (a) of the Regulations framed under Section 16-A, 16-B, and 16-C of the U. P. Intermediate Act, 1921 provides that forty percent of the total number of sanctioned posts in the Lecturers grade or in the L. T. grade shall only be filled by promotion from amongst the teachers working in the institution in the L. T. and C. T. grades respectively and pro motions shall be made subject to the availability of posts and eligibility of such teachers for promotion. 8. A bare reading of the provisions contained in Regulation 5 (2) (a) makes it abundantly clear that the quota of forty per cent reserved for promo tion from amongst the eligible teachers has to be determined with reference to the total number of sanctioned posts in the Lecturers grade or L. T. grade in the institution. The percentage is not to be determined with reference to the number of vacancy occurring at a given time. The view of the court below that the post was not available to be filled up by promotion, therefore, cannot be assailed. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, the court is of the opinion that instant appeal has no force and must be dismissed. 10. The view of the court below that the post was not available to be filled up by promotion, therefore, cannot be assailed. 9. In view of the foregoing discussion, the court is of the opinion that instant appeal has no force and must be dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. .