JUDGMENT : We find no substance in this appeal, which is directed against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 26.3.2009 in W.P.(S) No. 2874 of 2003 as the learned Single Judge has noted that the promotion granted to the petitioner-appellant was purely temporary which was subject to approval by the State Public Service Commission. The appellant’s promotion admittedly was not approved by the Commission and, therefore, an order of reversion was passed, which is perfectly justified in view of non receipt of recommendation for promotion. Since the promotion granted to the petitioner-appellant was temporary and was not approved by the Commission, the benefit of promotion obviously could not legally be conferred on the appellant. At this juncture, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondents had not issued a formal order of reversion of the petitioner-appellant from the promoted post of University Professor and, therefore, he is entitled to the benefit of promoted post in so far as the retiral benefits are concerned. Since the appellant’s promotion to the post of University Professor was neither approved by the Commission, which was the mandatory requirement under the Rule, nor he was officiating on the post of University Professor on the date of his superannuation as he was drawing the salary only as a Reader, his claim of retiral benefits for the post of University Professor could not have been entertained and, therefore, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal thus has no substance and is, accordingly, dismissed.