JUDGEMENT Navin Sinha and Dinesh Kumar Singh, JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant teacher in a nationalized High School on 1.5.1973. Being a simple graduate he was given the graduate untrained scale of pay in the junior grade. He obtained the qualification of teachers training on 9.6.1980 and was allowed the higher graduate trained scale of pay from that date. He was then given first time bound promotion by order dated 29.8.1991 with effect from 1.5.1983, after 10 years from the date of his initial appointment. 2. The scheme of time bound promotion introduced by resolution dated 30.12.1981 was for the purpose of prevention of stagnation in the same pay scale to which a person was appointed or its corresponding revised pay scale. 3. It was not available to those, who for any reason in the first 10 years of their services had been elevated to the higher pay scale, by promotion, merger or even up-gradation. After he had acquired the qualification of training and upon being granted the graduate trained scale of pay on 9.6.1980, he got promotion to a higher scale of pay and to a higher grade in the cadre of Assistant Teachers. 4. The respondents then sought to reconsider the grant of first time bound promotion to him in light of certain audit objections resulting in annulment of the promotion orders and directing recovery of excess amount paid. The petitioner then approached this Court in C. W. J. C. No.9719 of 2000. 5. On 16.7.1985 a clarificatory notification was issued to the earlier resolution dated 30.12.1981. It provided that the limitations of amalgamation/up-gradation provided for in the resolution dated 30.12.1981 to debar consideration for time bound promotion shall not apply in a case where all persons senior had been granted promotion. 6. Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant sought to persuade us that the limitation read by the order impugned into the notification dated 16.7.1985 that it shall not apply to individual cases of promotion, but only in case of merger or up-gradation of posts of a group of employees when bound promotion may not be denied, was not what the notification provided for. It contains no limitations of the nature which the impugned order reads into it. It contains no limitations of the nature which the impugned order reads into it. The submission therefore was that even in a case of an individual, if there had been up-gradation of his post only, he was entitled to first time bound promotion from the date on his initial appointment and therefore there was no error in the earlier order granting time bound promotion to him with effect from 1.5.1983 as to the extent the bar by the resolution dated 30.12.1981 stood relaxed. 7. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned judgment to urge that it required no interference and the Bench had already adequately protected the interest of the appellant insofar as the recovery aspect was concerned. 8. The impugned judgment held that the resolution dated 16.7.1985 was not applicable to individual cases of grant of higher promotion on the reasoning that it shall apply only in the event of merger or up-gradation of posts of a group of employees only. The impugned judgment on that reasoning held as follows:- "in the case of the present petitioner, it is seen that the grant of graduate trained scale of pay to him was not only a case of promotion to a higher scale of pay but it was also a case of promotion to a higher grade in the cadre. I have, therefore, no doubt in my mind that this petitioner qualified for the first time bound promotion only after ten years from the grant of the graduate trained scale of pay and not on completion of ten years from his initial appointment. " 9. We are not satisfied that the interpretation given to the circular dated 16.7.1985 was arbitrary or irrational so as to call for interference on the ground that another view may be possible. 10. Having given our consideration to the clarificatory notification dated 16.7.1985, in context of the earlier resolution dated 30.10.1981, we are satisfied that the reasoning given in the impugned judgment to deny the benefit of time bound promotion to the appellant from 1.5.1983, in light of the grant of higher scale of pay and higher grade in the cadre granted to him within 10 years of his appointment, adequately deals with the issue of stagnation sought to be redressed by the scheme for time bound promotion. The judgment under appeal calls for no interference, insofar as it holds that the appellant became eligible for consideration for grant of time bound promotion on completion of 10 years from the date that he was granted promotion in the graduate trained scale of pay i. e.9.6.1980. The appeal is dismissed.