JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of learned counsel for the parties. They have no complaint about any audio and visual quality. 2. The instant intra-court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 29.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.4471 of 2014, whereby and whereunder, while allowing the writ petition, the respondents have been directed to grant notional promotion to the writ petitioner w.e.f. 02.01.2001 on the post on which the writ petitioner was working as Head-Clerk by taking decision in this regard, but not later than 12 weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order. 3. The brief facts of the case which are required to be enumerated reads as under :- As per the case of the writ petitioner, he was appointed on the post of Clerk (Grade-III) on 10.07.1983 by the Governing body of the College, namely, Markham College of Commerce, Hazaribagh, which according to the writ petitioner, was made against the sanctioned post and accordingly, the writ petitioner has joined the said post on 12.08.1983. The Markham College of Commerce became constituent College of the University w.e.f. 31.10.1986. The Vinoba Bhave University, under whom, the Markham College has come vide memo no.1297/2005 dated 16.09.2005, by which, the services of non-teaching employees including the writ petitioner was regularized in compliance of the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6098 of 1997 as the writ petitioner was identified under Annexure-1-B of the report of the College by Hon’ble Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission. The name of the writ petitioner stands at Sl. No.13 of the said notification and the writ petitioner was absorbed w.e.f. 12.08.1983, i.e., the initial date of joining on the post. The writ petitioner, since, was allowed to work by way of officiating charge, to the post of Head Clerk/Accountant, as such, the College has recommended the name of the writ petitioner in compliance to the letter issued by the University dated 21.12.2007, asking to take steps for promotion to the post of Head Clerk/Accountant. But according to the writ petitioner, no steps have been taken. But according to the writ petitioner, no steps have been taken. The grievance of the writ petitioner is that although, he is working on the post of Head Clerk since January, 2001 in officiating capacity, having eligibility qualification to hold the said post, but, he has not been granted promotion and therefore, the writ petition has been filed being W.P.(S) No.4471 of 2014 but during the pendency of the said writ petition, the writ petitioner has already superannuated from his service. The writ petition has been heard, after the superannuation of the writ petitioner and the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the fact that the writ petitioner was allowed to officiate on the post of Head Clerk from January, 2001, therefore, passed an order holding the writ petitioner entitled for promotion to the post of Head Clerk, the said order is the subject matter of the present intra-court appeal having been preferred by the Vinoba Bhave University. 4. Mrs. Indrani Sen Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-University has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is without appreciating the fact that the writ petitioner was not at all entitled for promotion to the post of Head Clerk merely on account of the fact that the College has allowed him to perform duty on the post of Head Clerk. Further, he, even otherwise also is not entitled to hold the post of Head Clerk, for the reason that, he was absorbed in service as a ‘Sorter’ and as per the hierarchy, the next higher post on the basis of the higher pay scale is the post of the Clerk, but, the writ petitioner having not been granted promotion to the post of Clerk, now the promotion to the post of Head Clerk has been granted, therefore, on that ground also, the learned Single Judge has committed error. The further ground has been agitated that if the order passed by the learned Single Judge will remain to be intact, the consequence would be that the other eligible persons who became eligible, as also the senior will lose their chance for promotion to the post of Head Clerk, although, the writ petitioner has retired by now, but, a principle will be laid down that even on the basis of officiating to the higher post, a person will be held entitle for grant of regular promotion, which is nothing but contrary to the rules of promotion and therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge on the aforesaid background is not sustainable in the eye of law, as such, the same is fit to be quashed and set aside. 5. Per contra, Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner assisted by Mr. Raunak Sahay, has submitted that it is incorrect on the part of the University that the writ petitioner was appointed as ‘Sorter’, rather, he was all along working as Clerk having been appointed in Class-III and as such, the post of Head Clerk is immediate hierarchy of the post of Clerk, therefore, the writ petitioner was allowed to work as Head Clerk w.e.f. 02.01.2001 and considering his eligibility, has continued with the said post and recommendation has been made by the Principal of the concerned College for approving the decision of the University to promote the writ petitioner as Head Clerk. 6. 6. According to the learned Senior Counsel, when such grievance has not been fulfilled, the writ petitioner has preferred writ petition before this Court being W.P.(S) No.4471 of 2014 and the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the fact that the writ petitioner was working in the Class-III post and the University has allowed the writ petitioner to work in the officiating capacity, as Head Clerk, therefore, due recommendation has been made to the University for its approval but the same has not been approved and as such, the learned Single Judge after considering the long working period of the writ petitioner as Head Clerk, although, in the officiating capacity has passed an order holding the writ petitioner entitled for notional promotion to the post of Head Clerk, therefore, there is no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and as such, the order passed by the learned Single Judge may not be interfered with. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also considered the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 8. This Court, before entering into the legality and propriety of the impugned order, deems it fit and proper to refer undisputed fact which is important for proper adjudication of the lis. 9. Undisputedly, when the writ petitioner was appointed in the Markham College of Commerce, Hazaribagh, the said College was under the private management, wherein, the writ petitioner was shown to have worked as Class-III employee. The College has been taken over. The College with respect to dispute relating to regularization of teaching and non-teaching staffs has travelled to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein, a Committee was constituted under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Justice S.C. Agarwal in an order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.6098 of 1997, disposed of on 12.10.2004, in compliance thereof, the Vice-Chancellor, in exercise of powers vested in him under the provisions laid down under Section 4(14) of the Jharkhand State Universities Act, 2000 has passed an order to absorb the services of the non-teaching employees of the Colleges converted into constituent units in 4th phase against posts sanctioned before the cut-off date, i.e., 30.04.1986 and identified under Annexure-I-B of the report of the Colleges by Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission. The name of the writ petitioner has been shown at Sl. The name of the writ petitioner has been shown at Sl. No.13, having the designation of ‘Sorter’, showing the date of joining to be 12.08.1983 and the date of absorption as 12.08.1983, as would appear from Annexure-1 appended to the writ petition. It is, thus, evident that the writ petitioner was absorbed as ‘Sorter’. It is not in dispute that the report submitted by Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission, in entirety has been adopted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and as such, the decision since has been taken in pursuant to the report of the Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission, wherein, the case of the writ petitioner has been considered for absorption by absorbing him as ‘Sorter’, meaning thereby, the status of the writ petitioner as on the date of absorption, i.e., 12.08.1983 was of ‘Sorter’. The writ petitioner was allowed to continue in his service. The post of Head Clerk since was vacant in the University, therefore, the competent authority of the University has asked the writ petitioner to work as Head Clerk in officiating capacity, and in pursuant thereto, the writ petitioner has started discharging his duty in the officiating capacity as Head Clerk, however, subject to the condition of its approval by the University, since, the University under the Universities Act, 2000, is the competent authority to make appointment subject to approval by the State Government. According to the writ petitioner, the University has taken no action for approving the officiating charge as Head Clerk, therefore, the writ petition has been filed and the learned Single Judge after considering the fact that the writ petitioner was allowed to continue as Head Clerk in the officiating capacity w.e.f. 02.01.2001, has held the writ petitioner entitled for notional promotion w.e.f. 02.01.2001, which is under question in the instant intra-court appeal. 10. The admitted case of the writ petitioner, therefore, is that he has never been granted regular promotion, rather, he was allowed to discharge his duty in officiating capacity, as Head Clerk. 11. This Court in the aforesaid background is required to answer:- “as to whether merely because the writ petitioner was allowed to discharge his duty, in officiating capacity, as Head Clerk, can a right has been accrued for grant of promotion on substantive basis to the post of Head Clerk”. 12. 11. This Court in the aforesaid background is required to answer:- “as to whether merely because the writ petitioner was allowed to discharge his duty, in officiating capacity, as Head Clerk, can a right has been accrued for grant of promotion on substantive basis to the post of Head Clerk”. 12. The position of law is well settled that before granting promotion, the status of the employee which is to be considered for promotion, is required to be seen, i.e., the hierarchy of the post vis-à-vis the status of one or the other candidates, meaning thereby, if the promotion is to be granted to the post of Head Clerk, the capacity of such employee is to be seen to have in substantive capacity in the feeder cadre, i.e., just immediate below in hierarchy. It is also not in dispute that while considering the promotion on substantive basis, a Departmental Promotion Committee is required to be constituted for consideration of case of one or the other candidates to assess their merit-wise position before granting such promotion. Further, the concept of officiating charge by asking a person to discharge duty in the higher post, can also be availed depending upon the discretion of the concerned authority, if there is no chance of consideration of promotion on substantive basis, i.e., known as officiating charge to the higher post as per the service law applicable. 13. The material difference in between the regular promotion and allowing to work in officiating capacity to the higher post is that while on the one hand, the candidate which is being promoted on the substantive basis, is the higher post on the basis of the recommendation made by the duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee, subject to its acceptance by the competent authority, the same will be said to be promotion on substantive basis and the consequence would be that such candidate will be entitled to have the higher post along with the pay scale attached to the said post. But, in a case of discharging duty on officiating basis, such incumbent is being allowed to discharge duty in officiating capacity to the higher post, it cannot be construed to be a regular promotion in the eye of law, since, the same is being asked, in absence of recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee and by not following the due procedure as established by law to be adopted prior to granting promotion to such higher post. Therefore, if a person is being asked to discharge duty on officiating capacity, no right will be said to be accrued in his favour to claim promotion to the higher post merely because, he has been allowed to officiate to the higher post, otherwise, if a right will be said to be accrued, then the question will be, that can it be said to be a promotion in accordance with law in absence of recommendation by the duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committee and without any approval by the competent authority, as per the competency to grant such promotion under the applicable rules, which according to our considered view cannot be said to be proper and in accordance with law in absence of recommendation of D.P.C. and decision by a competent authority. 14. The facts of the given case vis-à-vis the entitlement of the writ petitioner for notional promotion to the higher post of Head Clerk is required to be considered on the basis of the discussion made in the preceding paragraph to test that merely because the writ petitioner was allowed to officiate the higher post of Head Clerk, can a right has been accrued to him to get promotion on substantive basis, although, herein, notionally since he has already retired sometime in the year, 2017, has accrued? 15. The right will be said to be accrued if the right is being created by a valid order, i.e., the order passed by the competent authority and on the basis of the established rules for grant of promotion, otherwise, if a person is being allowed to officiate to the higher post, no right will be said to have accrued to hold the said post. 16. 16. The relevance of the hierarchy in the given facts of the case is required to be considered, since, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that the writ petitioner was in the Class-III, even though, he has been absorbed as ‘Sorter’ but his status was of Clerk, therefore, he was entitled to be considered for promotion to the higher post as Head Clerk. Therefore, emphasis has been given on behalf of the learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner since in the Class-III post, as such, he is entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Head Clerk, upon which, due recommendation was made to the Vinoba Bhave University, i.e., the competent authority. 17. This Court, has considered the hierarchy of the post, which was created by the erstwhile State of Bihar through the Education Department vide memo no.1583 dated 14th August, 1982, wherefrom, it is evident that the post of ‘Sorter’ is at Sl. No.11 having the pay scale of Rs.220-313, in which, the number of post shown to be two. The post of Clerk is at Sl. No.11 having the pay scale of Rs.220-313, in which, the number of post shown to be two. The post of Clerk is at Sl. No.3 showing therein the pay scale of Rs.333-765 and the post of Head Clerk, the single post, having the pay scale of Rs.680-965, for ready reference, the entire list as contained in memo no.1583 dated 14th September, 1982 is being reproduced hereinbelow:- ^^funs'kkuqlkj mi;qZDr fo"k;d vkids i= la0 ih@636 fnukad 27-01-82 ds izlax esa eq>s dguk gS fd jkT; ljdkj us ek[kZe dkWyst vkWQ dkelZ] gtkjhckx ds fy, LVkfiax isVuZ desVh ds ekin.M ds vk/kkj ij fuEufyf[kr f'k{kdsRrj deZpkfj;ksa ds inksa ds l`tu dh Lohd`fr iznku dh gS%& Øekad osrueku Inuke inksa dh la[;k ftldh Lohd`fr nh xbZ gS prqFkZ osru iqujh{k.k 1- iz/kku fyfid ,d in¼m0o0½ 680&965 2- ys[kkiky ,d in¼m0o0½ 680&965 3- i=kpkj fyfid nks in 333&765 4- ys[kk fyfid≶&dks"kkiky nks in 333&765 5- dkmaVj fyfid rhu in 333&765 6- HkaMkjiky ,d in 333&765 7- Vadd nks in 333&765 8- 'kkjhfjd f'k{kk leqns'kd nks in 260&408 ¼viqujhf{kr osrueku esa½ 9- prqFkZoxhZ; in chl in 330&425 10- iqLrdk/;{k ,d in 296&460 ¼viqujhf{kr osrueku esa½ 11- lksVZj nks in 220&313 ¼viqujhf{kr osrueku esa½ dqy ;ksx ¼37½ lSarhl in 2- mi;qZDr Lohd`r inksa ij fu;qfDr fofgr izfØ;k ,oa vkj{k.k lEcU/kh vf/kfu;e ds vkyksd esa dh tk;sxhA 3- funs'kd ¼mPp f'k{kk½] fcgkj dks bldh lwpuk ns nh xbZ gSA^^ It is evident from the tabular chart shown in the letter creating the post that the post of ‘Sorter’ is having lesser pay scale in comparison to that of the post of Clerk. 18. Admittedly, as would appear from Annexure-1 appended to the writ petition that the writ petitioner was absorbed to the post of ‘Sorter’, in view of the recommendation made by the Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission and as such, it is not available for the writ petitioner to make an argument that he was working as Clerk. If that be so, then the question will arise, why the writ petitioner has accepted the order of absorption vide notification dated 16.09.2005 as contained in memo no.VBU/Esstt.1297/2005 (Annexure-1 appended to the writ petition), wherein, the status of the writ petitioner being absorbed as ‘Sorter’ has been shown w.e.f. 12.08.1983. If that be so, then the question will arise, why the writ petitioner has accepted the order of absorption vide notification dated 16.09.2005 as contained in memo no.VBU/Esstt.1297/2005 (Annexure-1 appended to the writ petition), wherein, the status of the writ petitioner being absorbed as ‘Sorter’ has been shown w.e.f. 12.08.1983. Since, the writ petitioner has been absorbed as ‘Sorter’ having the pay scale of Rs.220-313, as per Annexure-7, referred hereinabove, therefore, the writ petitioner will be said to be in the lower pay scale by holding the post of ‘Sorter’. The post of Head Clerk being a single post is required to be filled up from the immediate hierarchy, having below the post of Head Clerk being the feeder cadre, which admittedly, is in the higher category on the basis of the pay scale attached to the post of Clerk and as such, the consideration ought to have been given for promotion to the post of Head Clerk from the candidates holding the post of Clerk first and not from the person holding the post of ‘Sorter’. 19. The question to decide, as to whether the writ petitioner has held the post of ‘Sorter’, since was disputed, therefore, this Court has called upon the original service book of the writ petitioner for its perusal, wherefrom it is evident from page-13 that there is reference, i.e., “never performed the work of ‘Sorter’ since his joining up till now”. It requires to refer herein that the said entry made in the service book at page-13 is different in ink, which prima-facie appears to this court that it has been inserted subsequently. Be that as it may, since the said sentence, if taken to be correct, then also, the same will only infer that the writ petitioner was holding the post of ‘Sorter’, but he was disputing to have performed his duty as ‘Sorter’. It appears that the writ petitioner if absorbed as ‘Sorter’ but not performed his duty as ‘Sorter’, rather, he was working as Clerk, his status of service will not be changed from ‘Sorter’ to Clerk, merely because, he has not discharged his duty as ‘Sorter’. It appears that the writ petitioner if absorbed as ‘Sorter’ but not performed his duty as ‘Sorter’, rather, he was working as Clerk, his status of service will not be changed from ‘Sorter’ to Clerk, merely because, he has not discharged his duty as ‘Sorter’. Since, the writ petitioner has absorbed as ‘Sorter’, therefore, his status will remain as ‘Sorter’ for all time to come, reason being that, the absorption of the writ petitioner since was based upon the recommendation made by the Justice S.C. Agarwal Commission, which has been accepted in entirety by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, basis upon which, the State Government has issued notification by absorbing the writ petitioner as ‘Sorter’. 20. The further question would be that merely because the writ petitioner was allowed to discharge his duty, in officiating capacity as Head Clerk, can he be a right for promotion, even on notional basis? 21. The answer of this Court will be in negative, reason being that merely because an employee having lower in hierarchy, has been allowed to discharge his duty in the higher post, in officiating capacity, no right will be conferred upon him to claim promotion on the said higher post. A right will be said to be accrued, if the order of promotion had been granted by the competent authority and after following the due procedure. But herein, admittedly, it is the case of the writ petitioner itself that no regular promotion has been granted, rather, was allowed to discharge his duty as Head Clerk in officiating capacity by the Principal of the concerned College subject to approval of the University, but the University has never approved such promotion, due to the reason that the promotion to the post of Head Clerk is required to be taken after following the due procedure established under the rule. Therefore, according to our considered view, merely because the writ petitioner was allowed to officiate to the post of Head Clerk, no right is conferred to get it on substantive basis. 22. Therefore, according to our considered view, merely because the writ petitioner was allowed to officiate to the post of Head Clerk, no right is conferred to get it on substantive basis. 22. This Court, after having discussed the factual aspect as also the legal position as referred hereinabove in detail, has scrutinize the order passed by the learned Single Judge and found therefrom that the learned Single Judge basing upon the fact that the writ petitioner was allowed to discharge his duty, in officiating capacity as Head Clerk for a long period, therefore, he has been held entitled to get promotion on notional basis to the post of Head Clerk w.e.f. 02.01.2001, which according to our considered view, has been considered by the learned Single Judge without taking into consideration the accrual of right in favour of the writ petitioner, since, the order of promotion without any approval by the competent authority is non-est and further, he was allowed to officiate to the post of Head Clerk and hence, no right will be said to have accrued in favour of the writ petitioner and once the right has not been accrued, holding such person entitled for such right, will be incorrect order. 23. Accordingly and on the basis of the discussions made hereinabove, the order passed by the learned Single Judge, who has failed to appreciate the position of law as has been discussed hereinabove, requires interference by this Court. 24. As such, the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.4471 of 2014 on 29.08.2019 is hereby quashed and set aside. 25. In consequence thereof, the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.4471 of 2014 is dismissed. 26. In the result, the instant appeal stands allowed. 27. The Registry of this Court is directed to return back the original service book, which has been placed before this Court in a sealed cover to Mrs. Indrani Sen Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the Vinoba Bhave University. 28. In consequent to disposal of this appeal, interlocutory application being I.A.No.10841 of 2019, also stands disposed of.