Judgment S.J.Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. By impugned order dated 16th November, 1998, the Respondent Special Director having accepted Respondent No. 6 as validly appointed clerk in the school, in question, rejected the claim of petitioner for the said post. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the Respondent No. 6 having appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 11th August, 1989 and having made permanent against the said post, the petitioner was validly appointed against the post of clerk which fell vacant on such promotion of Respondent No. 6 and thereby the authorities should not have rejected the claim of petitioner nor could have treated the Respondent No. 6 as a clerk. 3. Admittedly, the Respondent No. 6 was appointed after following procedure as clerk on 1st August, 1983, which was the sole post vacant in the Vaidic Sahitya Sanskrit High School, Attasarai in the district of| Nalanda. 4. According to the petitioner, on superannuation of one Sukhdeo Sharma Suman on 31st August, 1988, the said post of Assistant Teacher was filled up by promotion of Respondent No. 6 on 11th August, 1989 and the Managing Committee permanently appointed the said Respondent to the post of Assistant Teacher on 20th September, 1989 against the vacancy of clerk because of promotion of Respondent No. 6, the petitioner was appointed on 1st September, 1988 to the post of clerk. 5. It appears that the Sanskrit Board while earlier forwarded the list of teaching and non-teaching employees of the school, in question, the petitioner was shown as clerk, whereas Respondent No. 6 was shown as an Assistant Teacher. However, the dispute relating to payment against one or other post remained pending in view of subsequent takeover of the School under ordinance and decision of this Court followed by Supreme Court in S.L.P. No. 3533-3595 of 1994. After decision, the Respondent No. 6 moved before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4317/96, when the matter was remitted to the Respondents for decision in respect of Respondent No. 6 and the petitioner, where in after the impugned order was passed on 16th November, 1998. 6. From the pleading made by the petitioner, it will be evident that he was appointed without any advertisement published in any newspaper, nor there is anything on the record to suggest that his name was recommended by a Selection Committee. 7. 6. From the pleading made by the petitioner, it will be evident that he was appointed without any advertisement published in any newspaper, nor there is anything on the record to suggest that his name was recommended by a Selection Committee. 7. Plea of the petitioner is that he was appointed against the post of clerk on promotion of Respondent No. 6 cannot be accepted as there was no provision for promotion of a clerk to the higher post of Assistant Teacher. It will be further evident that the Respondent No. 6 never applied for his appointment or promotion to the post of Assistant Teacher and all the time objected to such so-called appointment as Assistant Teacher. 8. In the aforesaid background, I find no illegality in the impugned order dated 16th November, 1998. 9. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.