JUDGMENT : Ramesh Ranganathan, J. 1. The application seeking condonation of delay of 40 days is not opposed by Shri Jagdish Chandra Belwal, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, and the delay of 40 days in preferring the appeal is condoned. The Delay Condonation Application (CLMA No. 6323 of 2019) stands disposed of. 2. Heard Shri Amar Murti Shukla, learned Counsel for the appellant, Shri B.P.S. Mer, learned Standing Counsel for the State, and Shri Ravi Babulkar, learned Counsel for respondent no. 4; and, with their consent, this Special Appeal is disposed of at the stage of admission. 3. This appeal is preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 438 of 2014 dated 28.02.2019. The respondents herein filed WPSS No. 438 of 2014 seeking a writ of mandamus directing respondent nos. 1 and 2 to promote the respondents to the vacant post of Senior Accountant from the date on which respondent nos. 3 to 5 have been promoted to the said post. 4. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the respondents-writ petitioners are all employees of the appellant board. They joined as Salesman, in a Class IV post, in the year 1998 in the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh. The respondent-writ petitioners appeared for a computer/typing test in the year 2005 and, as they qualified therein, they were appointed as Junior Assistants as per their seniority. They claim that they are entitled to be promoted as Senior Assistant after completing satisfactory service of three years as a Junior Assistant, subject to availability of posts. 5. In the year 2011 ten posts of Senior Assistant/Accountant were vacant in the department. The appellant started the process of filling up those vacant posts by promotion. Respondent nos. 3 to 5, who were then working as Salesman in the Uttarakhand Khadi and Gramodyog Board, were promoted as Accountants. While respondent nos. 3 to 5 in the writ petition were initially given regular promotion, the promotion order was modified later, making it clear that their promotion was only on an ad hoc basis. 6. Respondent nos. 3 to 5, who were then working as Salesman in the Uttarakhand Khadi and Gramodyog Board, were promoted as Accountants. While respondent nos. 3 to 5 in the writ petition were initially given regular promotion, the promotion order was modified later, making it clear that their promotion was only on an ad hoc basis. 6. It is the respondents-writ petitioners' case that the cadres of Salesman and Junior Assistant are separate; there is no provision for promotion of Salesman to the post of Senior Assistant; only Junior Assistants can be considered for promotion to the post of Senior Assistants/Accountants; even after three posts of Senior Assistant were filled up seven more posts of Senior Assistant/Accountant were still vacant and were left unfilled by the appellant board; the petitioners have been, periodically, requesting that they be promoted to the post of Senior Assistant/Accountant from the date on which respondent nos. 3 to 5 were promoted; they submitted a representation on 15.07.2013; and, though they were eligible to be promoted to the post of Senior Assistant/Accountant, and seven posts of Senior Assistant/Accountant were vacant, they were deprived of being promoted to the said posts. It is in such circumstances that they invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to promote them to the post of Senior Assistant/Accountant from the date on which respondent nos. 3 to 5 were promoted to the said post. 7. In the order under appeal dated 28.02.2019, the learned Single Judge observed that the Board, in order to remove the so called anomaly of stagnation in service, had promoted the private respondents, on an ad hoc basis, to the post of Accountant by order dated 18.11.2011. 8. The decision of the Board dated 29.11.2012, particularly as contained in Clause 6, provided that: "in the absence of there any avenue for promotion, the Salesman would be considered by the Selection Committee for promotion as an Accountant and the decision of the Committee of their promotion was made part of the letter dated for promotion as an Accountant; the administrative decision of the Board, in the absence of the residuary clause cannot override the statutory provisions with the Regulations framed under Section 37 of the Act of 1960. To deprive the petitioners of their right being considered for promotion on the post of Accountant, as per Regulation 16 read with Appendix Kha, serial No. 9, column 3, when they belong to the feeding cadre and fulfill all the eligibility criteria; they could not have been deprived for being considered for promotion, merely to adjust the Salesman who had no other source of promotion and there was stagnation in their services." 9. The learned Single Judge observed that, without disturbing the arrangement as made by the Board or without observing or dealing with the issue about the competence of the Board to pass such a resolution dated 18.11.2011 granting the status of ad hoc promotion as an Accountant to respondent nos. 3 to 5, a writ of mandamus should be issued to respondent no. 2 (second appellant) to consider the claim of the respondents-writ petitioners for promotion to the post of Accountant, without being influenced by the order of arrangement dated 18.11.2011, as made in favour of the private respondent nos. 3 to 5 who were permitted to work as ad hoc Accountant by order dated 18.11.2011. The learned Single Judge further observed that the claim of the petitioners for promotion should be considered strictly as per the Regulations of 1996, as against the posts available for promotion to the post of Accountant; and the entire exercise should be completed within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. 10. The learned Single Judge, thereafter, observed that, since respondent nos. 3 to 5 have been given the status of an ad hoc Accountant/Senior Assistant since 18.11.2011, the respondent-writ petitioner's claim for promotion as Accountant/Senior Assistant should be considered in accordance with law; and should be made effective from the date on which respondent nos. 3 to 5 were given ad hoc status as an Accountant/Senior Assistant; the respondents-writ petitioners were deprived of consideration for promotion because of the decision made in terms of Clause-6 of the order dated 29.11.2012; and the order of ad hoc promotion dated 18.11.2018 was in violation of the rules and in contravention of the Act of 1960 and Regulation of 1996. 11. In this context it is necessary to note that respondent nos. 11. In this context it is necessary to note that respondent nos. 3 to 5 in the writ petition have not questioned the order passed by the learned Single Judge by way of an appeal, and it is the Uttarakhand Khadi and Gramodyog Board which has filed the present appeal. 12. Shri Amar Murti Shukla, learned Counsel for the appellant, would submit that the learned Single Judge had granted the petitioners a relief which they had not even sought; the petitioners have not questioned the validity of the order passed by the Board, promoting respondent nos. 3 to 5 as ad hoc Senior Assistant/Accountant; in the absence of any specific challenge thereto, it was not open to the learned Single Judge to direct the appellant to consider the case of the respondents-writ petitioners for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant/Accountant; and the order under appeal necessitates interference on this ground. 13. The prayer sought in this writ petition is that the petitioners should be promoted to the vacant post of Senior Assistant/Accountant from the date on which respondent nos. 3 to 5 have been promoted to the said post. The respondents-writ petitioners did not seek to have the promotion of respondent nos. 3 to 5 set aside, and have only sought that they also be promoted on par with respondent nos. 3 to 5. 14. The learned Single Judge has, in the order under appeal, noted that, in terms of the 1996 Regulations, promotions were to be effected to the post of Senior Assistant/Accountant from the feeder cadre of Junior Assistants; the petitioners were all working as Junior Assistants; it is only because of Clause-6 of the Board Resolution, and in order to prevent them from stagnation in the post of Salesman (as no channel of promotion was provided from the said post), were respondent nos. 3 to 5 promoted, albeit on an ad hoc basis as an Accountant. As has been rightly observed, in the order under appeal, as long as the statutory regulations (regulations made in exercise of the power conferred by the U.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1960) continues to remain in force, any promotion effected contrary thereto, even by way of a Board circular, was illegal. 15. As has been rightly observed, in the order under appeal, as long as the statutory regulations (regulations made in exercise of the power conferred by the U.P. Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1960) continues to remain in force, any promotion effected contrary thereto, even by way of a Board circular, was illegal. 15. As the respondents-writ petitioners were working in the feeder cadre of Junior Assistant they were eligible to be considered for promotion to the vacant posts of Senior Assistant/Accountant. While directing the appellant to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion as Senior Assistant, since there were 7 vacancies, the learned Single Judge observed that the claim of the respondents-writ petitioners to be considered for promotion, with effect from the date on which respondent nos. 3 to 5 were given ad hoc status of Accountant/Senior Assistant, was reasonable. 16. The submission of Shri Amar Murti Shukla, learned Counsel for the appellant, is that the respondents-writ petitioners were not even eligible to be promoted as Accountants/Senior Assistants on that date; and others, who were seniors to the petitioners in the cadre of Junior Assistant, were also eligible to be promoted as Senior Assistants/Accountants prior to the petitioners. It is not necessary for us to undertake any such examination in the present writ proceedings, and it would suffice if the order of the learned Single Judge is modified to a limited extent and the appellants are directed, instead, to consider the case of the respondents-writ petitioners for promotion as Accountants/Senior Assistants, from the date on which respondent nos. 3 to 5 were so promoted, strictly in accordance with law. 17. It is made clear that it is for the appellant, while undertaking this exercise of considering the respondents-writ petitioners claim for promotion, to also consider whether or not the respondent- writ petitioners were eligible to be promoted from the date on which respondent nos. 3 to 5 were promoted; whether there were adequate number of vacancies at that time; whether there were other Junior Assistants, senior to the respondents-writ petitioners in the cadre of Junior Assistant at that relevant time, who were eligible to be promoted as Senior Assistant/Accountant. 18. The Special Appeal is disposed of with the above modifications in the order under appeal. No costs.