JUDGMENT Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.—The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in CT grade in Bhagirathi Arya Kanya Inter College, Lalkurti, Meerut, an institution recognized under the provisions of Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). It is stated that a vacancy arose in LT grade on 1.7.1988. However, the petitioner was not promoted. Aggrieved by the action of the Management in not promoting the petitioner, she approached this Court by way of Writ Petition No. 15414 of 2001, which was allowed by judgment dated 19.1.2006 holding that in view of Chapter II, Regulation 6 (6) of the regulations framed under the Act, the petitioner shall be deemed to be promoted on completion of five years from the date of vacancy, which is from 1.7.1988. The authorities were directed to pass necessary orders for promotion of the petitioner keeping in view the observations made in the said judgment. It is stated that in response to the said judgment, the petitioner was conferred LT grade w.e.f. 1.7.1988. Further case of the petitioner is that there are five posts of Lecturer in the Institution, out of which, one fell vacant consequent to retirement of Shanta Saxena on 30.6.1997. The vacancy, which came into existence on 1.7.1997 was to be filled by promotion under 50% quota. It is stated that though the petitioner was qualified for being promoted against the said post but her claim was not considered and one Smt Sneh lata(correct name Sneh Prabha) was illegally appointed by direct recruitment. Further case of the petitioner is that another lecturer Smt. Santosh Tyagi was to retire on 30.6.2002. In contemplation of said vacancy, the Management passed a resolution on 24.6.2002 authorising the manager to forward the papers of the petitioner to the authorities for being considered for promotion. In pursuance thereof, the selection committee constituted under Section 12 of the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 recommended for promotion of the petitioner. The petitioner was issued appointment letter on 6.1.2004 and on the same date, she joined as Lecturer. She made a representation on 24.12.2005 to the Joint Director of Education to promote her w.e.f. 1.7.1997 i.e. the date on which the first vacancy in the Lecturer grade came into existence on retirement of Smt. Shanta Saxena. The petitioner was issued appointment letter on 6.1.2004 and on the same date, she joined as Lecturer. She made a representation on 24.12.2005 to the Joint Director of Education to promote her w.e.f. 1.7.1997 i.e. the date on which the first vacancy in the Lecturer grade came into existence on retirement of Smt. Shanta Saxena. However, the District Inspector of Schools by communication dated 15/21.3.2007 turned down the representation holding that in 1997 when the first vacancy came into existence, the petitioner was not having the requisite eligibility for promotion to Lecturer grade, a fact admitted to the petitioner in her representation dated 24.12.2005. Thereafter, on occurrence of second vacancy in Lecturer grade on retirement of Smt. Santosh Tyagi, the petitioner was duly promoted and has been working as such. It was further held that in 1998, no post of Lecturer fell vacant in the Institution and, therefore, the petitioner could not be promoted since 1998. It appears that the aforesaid communication by District Inspector of Schools is based on the order of the Joint Director of Education dated 22.11.2006, which has neither been brought on record nor subjected to challenge by the petitioner in the present writ petition. The other order under challenge is letter dated 27.7.2007 by which the Principal of the Institution informed the petitioner about the letter of the District Inspector of Schools dated 15.3.2007. The petitioner, by means of the present writ petition, has also prayed for the quashing of the communication by the manager dt. 6.1.2004 whereby, the petitioner was informed to take charge on the post of lecturer from 6.1.2004. She has also prayed for a mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner in Lecturer grade from 1.7.1997 consequent to the vacancy that had come into existence on retirement of Smt. Shanta Saxena and also to pay salary for the said post since then. 2. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State respondents, in which it is stated that the petitioner was given LT grade in 1993 on completion of 10 years of service apparently in view of the Government Orders dated 3.6.1989 and 11.8.1989 by which CT grade was declared as dying cadre and all teachers working in the said grade having completed 10 years of service were held entitled to promotion to the LT grade. It is further stated that on 1.7.1997, when the vacancy in Lecturer grade came into existence, the petitioner had completed only four years and six months of service in L.T grade, was not entitled for being considered for promotion to the post of Lecturer. It is further stated that there were five sanctioned posts of Lecturer in the Institution and the second vacancy in the Lecturer grade came into existence in the year 2002. The petitioner was promoted as Lecturer in History on 30.12.2003 and she joined on 6.1.2004. The further case of the respondents is that in 1997 when the first vacancy in Lecturer grade arose, the same was required to be filled up by a scheduled caste candidate in view of the provisions of U.P. Public Services (Reservation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994. Since no scheduled caste teacher was available in the institution, therefore, the vacancy was filled up by scheduled caste candidate on recommendation of the U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’. It is further stated that after the vacancy which arose on 1.7.1997, there was no other vacancy in LT grade till the year 2002, to warrant promotion of the petitioner from back date. 3. A separate counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Management, in which it is stated that the petitioner was appointed in CT grade on 12.1.1983 and was regularised on 11.2.1986, therefore, on 1.7.1988, she had not completed five years substantive service. Consequently, she was not promoted in LT grade. She was given the said grade from 12.1.1993 after CT grade was declared a dying cadre and was merged in LT grade. It is further stated that on 1.7.1997 when the vacancy arose in Lecturer grade, the petitioner had only completed four and half years of service in LT grade, was therefore not considered for promotion. This fact has been admitted by the petitioner in her letter dated 24.12.2005 to the Joint Director of Education, Meerut Region, Meerut (CA-2). It is further stated that at that time U.P. Public Services (Reservation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 had come into force and out of five posts of Lecturer, one was to be filled by scheduled caste candidate. It is further stated that at that time U.P. Public Services (Reservation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 had come into force and out of five posts of Lecturer, one was to be filled by scheduled caste candidate. It is stated that after occurrence of vacancy on 1.7.1997 no scheduled caste candidate was available for promotion and, therefore, it was filled by direct recruitment of Smt. Sneh Prabha on recommendation by the Board. She joined as Lecturer of Economics on 17.7.1998. Thus, the only vacancy in Lecturer grade stood filled up. The next vacancy to the post of Lecturer came into existence on 1.7.2002 consequent to retirement of Smt. Santosh Tyagi on 30.6.2002. Admittedly, on such vacancy coming into existence, the Management forwarded the papers of the petitioner for being considered for promotion and on recommendation of the Selection Committee as per Section 12 (1) of the Act read with Rule 14 (6), the petitioner was issued appointment letter on 6.1.2004 and she joined the post on the same date without any reservation. The Management denied having received any representation from the petitioner in the year 1997 or 1998 for her promotion in the vacancy that came into existence on the retirement of Smt. Shanta Saxena. The specific case of the Management is that since the post of Lecturer is a selection post to be filled up on recommendation of the Selection Committee against a substantive vacancy, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim promotion from a back date when neither any vacancy was in existence nor there was any recommendation by the Selection Committee in her favour. 4. Sri Krishna Ji Khare counsel for the petitioner assailing the validity of the impugned orders contended that the petitioner was entitled for promotion from 1.7.1997, the date on which first vacancy in the Lecturer grade came into existence. He further submits that direct appointment of Smt. Sneh Prabha as Lecturer, though, the said post was meant to be filled up by promotion, will not defeat the right of the petitioner. It is further contended that the view of the authorities that the petitioner had not completed five years of continuous service in LT grade on 1.7.1997 is not sustainable in law in view of the judgment of this Court dated 19.1.2006 in Writ Petition No. 15414 of 2001. 5. It is further contended that the view of the authorities that the petitioner had not completed five years of continuous service in LT grade on 1.7.1997 is not sustainable in law in view of the judgment of this Court dated 19.1.2006 in Writ Petition No. 15414 of 2001. 5. Countering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and Sri Nitin Sharma, counsel for the Management submitted that when the first vacancy in Lecturer grade came into existence on 1.7.1997, the petitioner herself was aware of the factual situation prevailing at the relevant time that she had not completed five years of continuous service in LT grade, thus, was not eligible for being considered for promotion as is evident from her representation dated 24.12.2005 (CA-2). She never challenged the decision of the respondents to fill up the said post by scheduled caste candidate, or by direct recruitment. She also acquiesced to the appointment of Smt. Sneh Prabha, a scheduled caste candidate by direct recruitment on recommendation of the Selection Board. She never agitated the matter before any Court of law denying promotion to her on vacancy coming into existence consequent to retirement of Smt. Shanta Saxena on 1.7.1997 nor challenged the appointment of Smt. Sneh Prabha. Therefore, at this juncture, she cannot be permitted to claim a relief which has the effect of promoting her to the vacancy caused due to retirement of Smt. Shanta Saxena, against which another teacher Smt. Sneh Prabha has already been working. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioner was considered by the Selection Committee consequent to the vacancy that came into existence in the year 2002 upon retirement of Smt. Santosh Tyagi. She was also duly selected for promotion against the said post. She joined the Lecturer grade on 6.1.2004, without any protest. Her appointment in the Lecturer grade came into effect from the date she assumed charge i.e. 6.1.2004 and she cannot be promoted from a back date without there being any vacancy. It is also contended that the claim made by the petitioner in the instant writ petition is highly belated and would seriously prejudice the other teachers working in the Institution. Learned standing counsel further submitted that even notional promotion cannot be granted as it will not only affect the other teachers adversely but will also have financial repercussions. It is also contended that the claim made by the petitioner in the instant writ petition is highly belated and would seriously prejudice the other teachers working in the Institution. Learned standing counsel further submitted that even notional promotion cannot be granted as it will not only affect the other teachers adversely but will also have financial repercussions. It is, thus, contended that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed in CT grade on 12.1.1983 and was regularised on 11.2.1986. A vacancy arose in LT grade on 1.7.1988, against which the petitioner was not promoted, as according to the respondents, by that time, the petitioner had not completed five years of continuous service in CT grade. Ultimately, she was granted LT grade on 12.1.1993 on completion of 10 years of service in view of Government Orders dated 3.6.1989 and 11.8.1989, whereby, CT grade was declared as dying cadre and all teachers working in CT grade having completed 10 years of service, became entitled for promotion to LT grade. The vacancy in lecturer grade came into existence on 1.7.1997 on retirement of Smt. Shanta Saxena on 30.6.1997. The petitioner claims right to promotion on the said post from 1.7.1997 in view of the provisions of Chapter II, Regulations 5 and 6, which provide, inter alia, as under : “5. (1) Every vacancy in the post teacher in a recognised institution shall except as otherwise provided in clause (2) be filled by direct recruitment. (2) (a) [Fifty] per cent of the total number of the sanctioned posts in lecturer’s 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. grade and the C.T. grades respectively and promotions shall be made subject to availability and eligibility of such teachers for promotion. (b) ............... (c) ............ 6. (b) ............... (c) ............ 6. (1) Where any vacancy in the lecturer’s grade or in the L.T. grade as determined under Regulation 5 is to be filled by promotion, all teachers working in the L.T. or the C.T. grade, as the case may be, having a minimum of five years continuous substantive service to their credit on the date of occurrence of the vacancy shall be considered for promotion by the Committee of Management without their having to apply for the same provided they possess the prescribed minimum qualifications for teaching the subject in which the teacher in the lecturer’s grade or in the L.T. grade is required. Note........................................................ 2. Selection for promotion to the next higher grade shall be made on the basis of service-standing, achievements in service, academic qualifications and integrity. 3. ..................” 8. Earlier, the procedure for promotion was provided under Regulation 6 (5), where under the Management considers the case of each employee qualified for the post on the date of occurrence of the vacancy and sends the name of selected candidate for approval by the Inspector. However, with the coming into force of the U.P. Education Secondary Education Services Commission Act, 1982, the procedure for appointment by promotion came to be regulated by the provision of the said Act and the rules framed there under. U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission Rules, 1983 provided the criteria for promotion as seniority subject to rejection of unfit. The selection has to be made by the Commission. It was followed by 1995 Rules, where also the criteria and procedure for promotion remained substantially the same. By U.P. Act No. 25 of 1998, the Commission was replaced by Selection Board. The criteria for selection again remained the same. The promotions were to be considered by Selection Committee to be constituted as per provisions of Section 12 of the Act. Thus, there was no provision for automatic promotion or deemed promotion on completion of five years of service. It is dependent on existence of a vacancy and selection by the Commission or the Selection Committee envisaged by Section 12 of the Act. The teacher should possesses requisite qualification on the first day of the year of recruitment, which according to Section 2 (l), means a period of twelve months commencing from the first day of the calendar year. Thus, the teacher should have been duly qualified as on 1.1.1997. 9. The teacher should possesses requisite qualification on the first day of the year of recruitment, which according to Section 2 (l), means a period of twelve months commencing from the first day of the calendar year. Thus, the teacher should have been duly qualified as on 1.1.1997. 9. Indisputably, the case of the petitioner in 1997 was not considered on the ground that she does not have five years of continuous service in LT grade, having been promoted on 12.1.1993. The petitioner admitted the aforesaid stand of the respondents to be correct, as is evident from her representation dated 24.12.2005 (CA-2), wherein she stated that on the date of vacancy on 1.7.1997 she had completed only four years six months of service. According to the admitted case of both the parties, there were five posts of Lecturer in the Institution. The case of the respondents is that with the enactment of U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994, one out of five posts was to be filled by scheduled caste candidate and since there was no scheduled caste teacher in LT grade, therefore, the vacancy in question was filled up by direct recruitment of Sneh Prabha,a scheduled caste candidate, on recommendation of the Board. Thus, according to the respondents, even otherwise, the petitioner could not have been promoted against the said vacancy. 10. The petitioner claims to have made representation in 1997-98 raising grievance that in 1998, the vacancy was wrongly filled up by direct appointment of Sneh Prabha, as by that time she had completed five years of continuous service. However, copy of such representation is not annexed with the writ petition. The Management in its counter-affidavit had specifically pleaded that no such representation was received by it. Thereafter, the petitioner in her rejoinder-affidavit filed photo copies of certain representations purportedly made by her in the year 1997-98, in which it is stated that in 1998, the post in question was wrongly filled up by direct recruitment of Smt. Sneh Prabha. 11. Be that as it may, it is evident that the petitioner did not agitate the matter before any forum or Court of law. The next vacancy in Lecturer Grade came into existence on 1.7.2002 on retirement of Smt. Santosh Tyagi on 30.6.2002. 11. Be that as it may, it is evident that the petitioner did not agitate the matter before any forum or Court of law. The next vacancy in Lecturer Grade came into existence on 1.7.2002 on retirement of Smt. Santosh Tyagi on 30.6.2002. The candidature of the petitioner was considered for promotion to the said post and on recommendation of the Board, the Management issued her appointment letter and the petitioner assumed charge in the Lecturer grade on 6.1.2004. Photo copy of the letter by which she assumed charge is Annexure CA-3 and it is evident there from that the petitioner had assumed charge of her office without any reservation whatsoever. After about one year, by representation dated 24.12.2005 vide Annexure CA-2, the petitioner requested the authorities to promote her from back date i.e. from 1998. Even in the said representation, the petitioner had not prayed for promotion from 1.7.1997 as she herself stated that she was not having requisite experience in L.T Grade at the relevant time. The authorities took the same stand holding that petitioner was not eligible for promotion in 1997, and in 1998, there was no fresh vacancy till the time petitioner was promoted in the year 2003. 12. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the view taken by the respondents is not sustainable in law in view of the judgment of this Court dated 19.1.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 15414 of 2001. In the said writ petition, the petitioner had claimed promotion in LT grade on vacancy which had come into existence on 1.7.1988. This Court held that by that time, the petitioner had completed five years of continuous service in CT grade and will be deemed to be promoted under Chapter II Regulation 6 (6). The operative part of the judgment of this Court is as under : “From the perusal of record, I find that the vacancy arose in the LT grade on 1.7.1988 due to the promotion of Smt. Usha Sharma as lecturer in Hindi, which fell vacant due to retirement of Smt. Nirmala Rastogi. The operative part of the judgment of this Court is as under : “From the perusal of record, I find that the vacancy arose in the LT grade on 1.7.1988 due to the promotion of Smt. Usha Sharma as lecturer in Hindi, which fell vacant due to retirement of Smt. Nirmala Rastogi. Regulation 6 (6) Chapter II of the Regulations framed under the Intermediate Education Act is as under : “(6) Within three weeks from the date of receipt of the proposal under clause (5) the Inspector shall communicate his decision thereon to the Manager failing which the Inspector shall be deemed to have given his concurrence to the resolution passed by the Committee of Management.” According to this Regulation the petitioner was entitled to promotion on the post of LT grade immediately on completing five years but the same has not been done rather the respondents have taken shelter of the provisions of the Government Order dated 3.6.1989, which is in respect of only fixing the salary of the teacher promoted to LT grade after expiry of ten years. In the present case the Regulation 6 (6) comes into play and the petitioner is deemed to be promoted from the date she completed five years from the date of the vacancy, which is from 1.7.1988. Under the above said facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders dated 19.3.2001, 23.10.2000 and 12.9.2000 passed by respondents 3, 2 and 1 respectively, are hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No. 2 to pass necessary orders for the promotion of the petitioner in terms of the provisions of Regulation-6 (6) of Chapter II of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and observations made hereinabove, within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is submitted before it. Petition is disposed off with no order as to costs.” 13. The order passed after remand has not been brought on record. However, it is stated that the petitioner was given LT grade from 1.7.1988 on the basis of the judgment of this Court. It is true that on basis of the said judgment, the petitioner had already put in five years of continuous service in L.T grade on 1.7.1997 when the vacancy in Lecturer grade occurred. However, it is stated that the petitioner was given LT grade from 1.7.1988 on the basis of the judgment of this Court. It is true that on basis of the said judgment, the petitioner had already put in five years of continuous service in L.T grade on 1.7.1997 when the vacancy in Lecturer grade occurred. But nonetheless, promotion was denied to the petitioner at that time on the ground that the petitioner had not completed five years of continuous service in L.T. grade. Further, for the reason that the post is to be filled by scheduled caste candidate. The petitioner kept quiet. She neither challenged the action of the Management in refusing to forward her case for being considered for promotion nor challenged the action of the Management in sending requisition to the Board for filling up the said post by direct recruitment of a scheduled caste candidate. She also did not challenge the appointment of Smt. Sneh Prabha as Lecturer on the only vacant post of Lecturer available at the relevant time. Admittedly, in the year 2001, the petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 15414 of 2001 claiming L.T. grade from back date. By that time, the alleged claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Lecturer had matured, she was denied promotion to the said post on account of alleged illegal appointment of Smt. Sneh Prabha by direct recruitment but the petitioner kept quiet. She never claimed any relief in earlier writ petition in this regard. She even did not file any fresh writ petition nor challenged the action of the authorities in filling up the said post, ignoring the claim of the petitioner. It is settled law that a person, who sleeps over his right and does not approach the Court with promptitude, will have to suffer and Court does not come to rescue of such person. The Apex Court in the case of P.S. Sadasivasway v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152 , had laid down that a person aggrieved by an order promoting his junior over his head should approach the Court atleast within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. The Apex Court in the case of P.S. Sadasivasway v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1975) 1 SCC 152 , had laid down that a person aggrieved by an order promoting his junior over his head should approach the Court atleast within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. In Union of India and others v. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 2 SCC 59, the Supreme Court held that filing of a representation in regard to a stale or dead issue even if followed by decision of the authority rejecting such representation, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action for reviving the dead issue or time barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and latches should be considered with reference to original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order was passed deciding the representation. In a more recent judgment in State of Uttranchal and another v. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, JT 2013 (12) SC 264, it was held that in case an employee keeps quiet for considerable period, though his juniors have been promoted without challenging said action of the employer and approaches the Court after considerable delay, then there is no equity in his favour. It was further held that in such cases even notional promotional benefits should not be granted. It was observed as under : “We are absolutely conscious that in the case at hand the seniority has not been disturbed in the promotional cadre and no promotions may be unsettled. There may not be unsettlement of the settled position but, a pregnant one, the respondents chose to sleep like Rip Van Winkle and got up from their slumber at their own leisure, for some reason which is fathomable to them only. But such fathoming of reasons by oneself is not countenanced in law. Any one who sleeps over his right is bound to suffer. As we perceive neither the tribunal nor the High Court has appreciated these aspects in proper perspective and proceeded on the base that a junior was promoted and, therefore, the seniors cannot be denied the promotion. Remaining oblivious to the factum of delay and laches and granting relief is contrary to all settled principles and even would not remotely attract the concept of discretion. Remaining oblivious to the factum of delay and laches and granting relief is contrary to all settled principles and even would not remotely attract the concept of discretion. We may hasten to add that the same may not be applicable in all circumstances where certain categories of fundamental rights are infringed. But, a stale claim of getting promotional benefits definitely should not have been entertained by the tribunal and accepted by the High Court. True it is, notional promotional benefits have been granted but the same is likely to affect the State exchequer regard being had to the fixation of pay and the pension. These aspects have not been taken into consideration....” 14. In the instant case, though the cause of action for challenging denial of promotion to the petitioner had accrued on appointment of Sneh Prabha by direct recruitment in the year 1998 but the petitioner kept quiet. She did not even agitate the issue in earlier Writ Petition No. 15414 of 2001 filed much after 1998. Thus, her claim in this regard put forth in the year 2007 is barred by latches and unexplained inordinate delay. 15. Further, the petitioner admittedly is claiming right to promotion against the vacancy that had come into existence on 1.7.1997, on the retirement of Smt. Shanta Saxena on 30.6.1997, against which Smt. Sneh Prabha was appointed. With her appointment, all five sanctioned posts of Lecturer in the Institution stood filled up. In order to successfully establish her right to promotion in the Lecturer grade in the year 1997-1998, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to have challenged the appointment of Sneh Prabha. In that eventuality, Sneh Prabha would have been a necessary party to such lis. She could have raised several pleas in support of her appointment. However, the petitioner slept over her right. Now, in case the petitioner is held entitled for promotion in the year 1997, that could only be against the vacancy on which Sneh Prabha was appointed. Such relief cannot be granted without challenging the appointment of Sneh Prabha and impleading her as a party to the writ petition. In view of the above, the relief claimed by the petitioner in the instant writ petition cannot be granted. 16. It may further be noticed that promotion to LT grade is not a time bound promotion. It is also not automatic on competition of five years of continuous service. In view of the above, the relief claimed by the petitioner in the instant writ petition cannot be granted. 16. It may further be noticed that promotion to LT grade is not a time bound promotion. It is also not automatic on competition of five years of continuous service. It is dependent on availability of vacancy and selection by the Selection Committee. The petitioner was promoted on occurrence of vacancy in the year 2002, consequent to retirement of Smt. Santosh Tyagi on 30.6.2002 by the selection committee constituted under Section 12 of the Act. Under Rule 14 (6), the Management on the basis of such recommendation had issued appointment letter to the petitioner. The appointment by promotion cannot be from a date prior to the occurance of a vacancy. Thus, the claim of the petitioner for promotion from a back date, cannot be upheld, in the facts of the instant case. 17. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on State of Maharashtra v. Jagannath Achyut Karandikar, 1989 Supp (1) SCC 393. In that case, the dispute was regarding inter se seniority in the cadre of Superintendents. The respondents before the Apex Court were Assistant Secretaries/Section Officers/Superintendents in different departments. For promotion to the cadre of Superintendent, passing of a departmental examination to be held every year by the Government was necessary. The Government failed to hold examination in 1968, 1969 and 1970. The Rule confers wide power in the Government to relax the condition for passing the examination. If examination is not held in any particular year, a person could be promoted, provided he had not exhausted all the permissible chances of exam and passes the exam at the earliest opportunity. The Government initially did not grant relaxation to such persons, but subsequently re-determined their seniority as per their placement in the feeding cadre. Justifying such action, the Apex Court observed that power of relaxation was already there with the Government and the legitimate seniority has rightly been restored. However, it was a decision on the facts of that case and in reference to the power of the Government to grant relaxation under the Service Rules. Justifying such action, the Apex Court observed that power of relaxation was already there with the Government and the legitimate seniority has rightly been restored. However, it was a decision on the facts of that case and in reference to the power of the Government to grant relaxation under the Service Rules. It does not have any universal application, rather in the case at hand, granting promotion to the petitioner from a back date is neither contemplated under law nor will be fair to other teachers of the Institution, who are not before the Court and might be seriously prejudiced. 18. Counsel for the Petitioner also placed reliance on the judgement of this Court in Shashikala v. State of U.P. and others, 2011(3) ADJ 748 . That was a case where the Board by order dated 6.2.1993 directed the Management to issue the appointment letter within 10 days. The management delayed the same and issued the appointment letter only on 6.9.1993 when direction was issued to it in a writ petition filed by the candidate. Later on, while deciding the claim of such teacher for regularisation under Section 33-C of the 1982 Act, it was held that the appointment having been made on 6.9.1993, while cut-off date was 6.8.1993, therefore, the teacher was not entitled for regularisation. It was in the aforesaid background that this Court held that the teacher cannot be made to suffer on account of delay on part of the management in issuing appointment letter and her claim for regularisation is liable to be considered treating the teacher to have been appointed on a date prior to cut-off date. Even in the said judgement, it was not held that the appointment can relate back to a date prior to selection by the Board. Thus, the aforesaid decision does not come to the aid of the Petitioner. 19. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had already retired on 30.6.2013 and thus, granting promotion to her from back date will not affect the other teachers. On examination of the said argument, it is to be noticed that the necessary corollary of such declaration would be to make the petitioner senior to Sneh Prabha. It cannot be doubted that this could not be done without her being party to the present writ petition. There may be other teachers, who would be affected by such declaration. On examination of the said argument, it is to be noticed that the necessary corollary of such declaration would be to make the petitioner senior to Sneh Prabha. It cannot be doubted that this could not be done without her being party to the present writ petition. There may be other teachers, who would be affected by such declaration. Thus, a relief to which the petitioner was not entitled to during her service tenure, cannot be granted merely for the reason that she had retired during the pendency of the writ petition. Further, notional promotion of this nature would definitely have financial implications, which therefore cannot be allowed in view of the Apex Courts dictum in the case of State of Uttranchal and another v. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari, JT 2013 (12) SC 264 (supra). 20. Thus, I am not persuaded to grant the reliefs claimed by the petitioner in the instant case. There is no illegality in the impugned orders. Writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. —————