JUDGMENT : M.S.Sonak, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. By order dated 03.01.2022, this matter was posted for final disposal. Accordingly, rule. The rule is made returnable forthwith at the request of and with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The challenge in this petition is to the communication dated 07.08.2021 addressed by the Assistant Director of Education (VOC) informing the petitioner that his candidature cannot be considered for promotion to the post of Principal of Smt. Chandrabhaga Tukoba Naik Higher Secondary School, (said school). 4. In June 2021, a vacancy arose in the position of Principal of the said school, which was required to be filled in by promotion in terms of Rules 78 and 86 of the Goa School Education Rules, 1986 (said Rules). Respondent no.5 herein (Surekha) claimed to be the senior-most candidate in the feeder cadre. Respondent no.4 (management), however, delayed the convening of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and appointed some other teacher as “in charge Principal”. 5. Surekha, therefore, instituted Writ Petition No.311 of 2021 in this Court, which was disposed of by order dated 22.09.2021. This Court directed the management and the Director of Education (DOE) to ensure that regular DPC is convened within two months to fill up the post of Principal of the said school on regular basis. The appointment of respondent no.8 in the said petition as “in charge Principal” was quashed and Surekha was directed to be appointed in his place with effect from 01.10.2021. 6. Before the DPC could be convened the present petitioner (Rajan) instituted the present petition claiming that he was the senior-most teacher in the feeder cadre and the impugned communication dated 07.08.2021, by which his candidature was declined, to be considered as illegal, unconstitutional, null and void. 7. This Court, by its order dated 20.12.2021, ordered the deferment of the meeting of the DPC up to 05.01.2022. Later on, this order was extended from time to time because an order was made for taking up this petition for final disposal at an early date. Surekha pointed out to the Court that she was due to retire by 31.03.2022 and if this petition was not decided by then, then perhaps she and Rajan would both be deprived of the position of Principal of the said School. Surekha pointed out to the Court that she was due to retire by 31.03.2022 and if this petition was not decided by then, then perhaps she and Rajan would both be deprived of the position of Principal of the said School. Surekha, however, maintained that Rajan was not even eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Principal. 8. Mr. Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner - Rajan, submitted that Rajan was appointed as a grade I teacher in the said School on 01.08.1988, and Surekha was appointed only on 08.08.1988. He pointed out that the advertisement was for filling in the post of grade I teacher, Rajan’s application was for grade I teacher, the appointment order issued to Rajan was as grade I teacher and even the approval granted by DOE was for the appointment of Rajan as grade I teacher. He submitted that merely because Rajan was appointed as grade I teacher in the vocational stream did not render him ineligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Principal, particularly, since Rajan had all the qualifications prescribed in Rule 78 for promotion to the post of Principal of the said School. 9. Mr. Rao submitted that there was nothing in the Goa School Education Act 1984 (said Act) or in the said Rules for exclusion of grade I teachers from the vocational stream, when it comes to promotion to the post of Principal. He pointed out that DOE had issued a circular dated 29.05.1992 clarifying that vocational stream at the +2 stage is a part of Higher Secondary Education on par with other streams and, therefore, the provisions of the said Act and the said Rules apply to vocational stream from the date of commencement of vocational stream in the State. Mr. Rao submitted that in the absence of any exclusion in the said Rules and having regard to the circular dated 29.05.1992, the exclusion of Rajan from the feeder cadre to the post of Principal was ex- facie arbitrary, unconstitutional, null, and void. Mr. Rao submitted that the right to consider for promotion was a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 16 of the Constitution of India and the same was being abrogated by the respondents without any justification therefore. 10. Mr. Mr. Rao submitted that the right to consider for promotion was a fundamental right guaranteed by Article 16 of the Constitution of India and the same was being abrogated by the respondents without any justification therefore. 10. Mr. Rao submitted that Rajan had on 25.02.2021 objected to the seniority list dated 17.02.2021, because the said seniority list had indicated the names and seniority positions of grade I teachers in the vocational stream separately. He submits that this objection was never disposed of and, in any case, there was no justification for making such a separate seniority list and using the same to declare Rajan ineligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Principal of the said School. 11. Mr. Rao submitted that the petitioner was appointed as grade I teacher on 01.08.1988 and was therefore senior to Surekha, who was appointed only on 08.08.1988. He pointed out that in terms of Rule 86 of the said Rules, the promotion to the post of Principal is based on seniority as the prime criteria. He submits that if the claim of the senior eligible teacher is to be bypassed, reasons for the same in writing will have to be recorded by the DPC. He also pointed out that Rule 86 requires that the claim of the senior qualified teacher shall not be bypassed arbitrarily without tangible reasons. He relied on Pratibha A. Agranayak V/s. Director of Education, Panaji-Goa & Ors., 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. 796 . Smt. Malini M. Xete V/s. The Director of Education, Government of Goa & Ors., (1999) 3 Bom CR 618 and N. Ganesan V/s. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., MANU/TN/0701/2011 in support of his contentions. 12. The learned Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that the vocational training scheme was introduced sometime in the year 1988-89 and this is evident from the circular dated 28.04.1988 placed on record by Surekha (Exhibit R-5/11 at pages 198 to 204 of the paper book). He submitted that this was a centrally sponsored scheme of vocationalisation of education in Secondary Education. The funds for the implementation of this scheme were also released by the central government. The staffing pattern and the qualifications of the full-time teachers were also prescribed under the said scheme itself. The hierarchy of posts was also prescribed under the said scheme itself. The funds for the implementation of this scheme were also released by the central government. The staffing pattern and the qualifications of the full-time teachers were also prescribed under the said scheme itself. The hierarchy of posts was also prescribed under the said scheme itself. Based on all these, he submitted that the vocational stream, which was stated to be a temporary measure, was never regarded as a part of a regular stream in higher secondary schools. 13. The learned Advocate General submitted that the vocational stream does not contemplate appointments of grade I teachers or trained graduate teachers, as prescribed under the said Rules, instead, this scheme contemplates appointments of full-time teachers and part-time teachers. The scheme also contemplates promotion to the post of Vice- Principal when such a post is not even reflected in the said Act or the said Rules when it comes to the regular-stream. He submitted that even the qualifications for full-time teachers are different and distinct from the qualifications prescribed for appointments as grade I teachers or trained graduate teachers under the said Rules. He points out that quite significantly training qualification like B.Ed. or D.Ed. is not even prescribed for appointment as a full-time teacher in the vocational stream. Based on all these facts, the learned Advocate General submitted that full-time teachers in the vocational stream cannot regard themselves as grade I teachers in the regular stream and thereby claim eligibility for promotion to the post of Principal. 14. Learned Advocate General submitted that merely because the management may have, in its advertisement or appointment order, referred to Rajan as grade I teacher or further that the DOE in its approval letter may have also gone by the nomenclature of grade I teacher, Rajan cannot take any undue advantage of such incorrect reference and insist promotion to the post of Principal, when, in fact, he is not eligible to be so considered. 15. Learned Advocate General submitted that the circular dated 29.05.1992 or the Office Memorandum dated 10.06.2002 relied upon by Mr. Padgaonkar, learned Counsel for the school management, make it clear that the staff from the vocational stream was considered on par with the staff from the regular stream only for the extension of financial benefits like salary, pension, etc. and for no other purposes. 16. Padgaonkar, learned Counsel for the school management, make it clear that the staff from the vocational stream was considered on par with the staff from the regular stream only for the extension of financial benefits like salary, pension, etc. and for no other purposes. 16. Learned Advocate General also pointed out that since the introduction of the vocational stream in the year 1988, no teacher from the vocational course has been considered for promotion to the post of Principal of a Higher Secondary School. He pointed out that instead a separate seniority list is prepared and teachers from the vocational stream can seek promotion to the position of Vice-Principal of the vocational stream, which position is not open to the teachers in the regular stream. He submits that this is an additional reason why this petition ought to be dismissed. 17. Ms. Ketki Pednekar, learned Counsel for Surekha adopted the submissions made by the learned Advocate General. She pointed out that separate seniority lists have been issued from time to time and at no stage other than in the year 2021 Rajan objected to the same. She referred to a seniority list dated 17.01.2011 and pointed out how Rajan accepted the same without any demur. She submitted that it was too late now for Rajan to claim eligibility for promotion to the position of Principal, particularly, since Rajan availed of and enjoyed promotion as Vice-Principal of the vocational stream from the year 2000. She submitted that this position of Vice-Principal of the vocational stream is not even reflected in the said Rules and, in any case, this post is included in the feeder grade for promotion to the post of Principal. 18. Ms. Pednekar also pointed out that the services of Rajan from 1988 till at least 2002 were only temporary or on an adhoc basis. She submitted that regularization could be presumed only from the year 2002 and in that sense, Rajan could not regard himself as senior to Surekha since Surekha was appointed on regular basis in the year 1988 itself. She relied on K.S. Mahalingegowda & Ors. She submitted that regularization could be presumed only from the year 2002 and in that sense, Rajan could not regard himself as senior to Surekha since Surekha was appointed on regular basis in the year 1988 itself. She relied on K.S. Mahalingegowda & Ors. V/s. Secretary to Government, Department of Vocational Education, Karnataka & Ors., 1995 Supp (2) SCC 95 in support of her contention that the vocational stream was different and distinct from the general stream and there was no error in providing for separate seniority list and separate promotional avenues to the teachers from the said two streams. 19. Ms. Pednekar pointed out that despite the directions of this Court in Writ Petition No.311 of 2021, instituted by Surekha and the order dated 22.09.2021 made therein, Surekha is being deprived of the position of Principal by the management. She pointed out that the management in Writ Petition No.311 of 2021 did not even dispute the position that Surekha was the senior-most teacher in the feeder cadre. She submitted that the management now should not be allowed to take the contrary stance to defeat not only the petitioner’s right but also the directions issued by this Court in its order dated 22.09.2021. 20. Ms. Pednekar, therefore, urges that this petition should be dismissed and the issue of promotion to the post of Principal of the school should be directed to be resolved before 31.03.2022. 21. Mr. Padgaonkar, the learned Counsel for the management, supported the case of the petitioner - Rajan. To that extent, Mr. Padgaonkar adopted the submissions made by Mr. Rao, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Padgaonkar referred to the Office Memorandum dated 10.06.2002 to point out that the government had extended all the service benefits to the staff of the vocational educational stream as applied to their counterparts in government service. He submits that such service benefits would essentially include the right to be considered to the promotion to the post of Principal. He submitted that the import of the circular dated 29.05.1992 is also to the same effect. He submitted that the petitioner - Rajan should be held eligible to be considered for the post of Principal since he was the senior-most grade I teacher in the said School. Mr. He submitted that the import of the circular dated 29.05.1992 is also to the same effect. He submitted that the petitioner - Rajan should be held eligible to be considered for the post of Principal since he was the senior-most grade I teacher in the said School. Mr. Padgaonkar, however, admitted that the management had always prepared a separate seniority list of the teachers in the general stream and the vocational stream, but submitted that this ought not to make any difference to the petitioner’s case. 22. The Rival contentions now fall for determination. 23. There is material on record that indicates that the vocational stream that was introduced in the year 1988-89 was not only entirely separate but further that the same was always treated as such by the school management and the Directorate of Education. Even the school management in the present case, that is respondent no.4, has treated the vocational stream as separate, which is evident from the separate seniority list prepared by this very management right from the introduction of the vocational stream in the year 1988-89. 24. Surekha has placed on record the finalized seniority list dated 17.01.2011, in which the seniority positions of the petitioner - Rajan, and Surekha were shown separately. The record indicates that both the petitioner - Rajan and Surekha accepted this seniority list without any demur whatsoever. Significantly, in the seniority list dated 17.01.2011, the designation of the petitioner - Rajan was indicated not as grade I teacher or teacher grade I, but as “full-time teacher”. Now, the designation “full-time teacher” is nowhere to be found in the said Rules, but rather the same finds a place in the staffing pattern appended to the circular dated 28.04.1998 by which the vocational stream was introduced in the State of Goa. 25. Similarly, even on 17.02.2021, the school management circulated a finalized seniority list reiterating the position reflected in the earlier seniority list, including the seniority list of 17.01.2011. Here again, there were separate seniority lists for teachers from the general stream and the vocational stream. It is only this time that the petitioner - Rajan claims to have objected to the framing of the seniority list. 26. Here again, there were separate seniority lists for teachers from the general stream and the vocational stream. It is only this time that the petitioner - Rajan claims to have objected to the framing of the seniority list. 26. The petitioner - Rajan’s objection dated 25.02.2021 has to be construed in the background of what transpired before this Court in Writ Petition No.311 of 2021 instituted by Surekha complaining that the school management was bent upon depriving her the promotion to the post of Principal. Surekha had significantly contended that she was the senior-most teacher in the feeder cadre and despite the clarity in Rule 86 of the said Rules, the school management was resisting the convening of a DPC simply to deny promotion to her. 27. The order dated 22.09.2021 disposing of Writ Petition No.311 of 2021 reflects that the case of Surekha was accepted by this Court. Significantly, the order also reflects that the respondents in the said petition, which includes respondent no.4 herein (school management), did not dispute before the Court that Surekha was the senior-most in the feeder cadre. 28. The aforesaid is evident from paragraph 4 of the order dated 22.09.2021 in Writ Petition No.311 of 2021, which reads as follows:- “4. The petitioner claims to be the senior-most Teacher under the feeder cadre when it comes to promotion to the post of Principal of Smt. Chandrabhaga Tukoba Naik Higher Secondary School (said School). None of the respondents before us have disputed the position that the petitioner is senior-most in the feeder cadre.” Emphasis supplied. 29. Therefore, now, in this petition, it is indeed most surprising if not disturbing that the school management should even attempt to contend that Surekha was not the senior-most teacher in the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Principal and that it was the petitioner - Rajan, who was the senior-most teacher in the feeder cadre. This stance on the part of the management is not only contrary to the records but contrary to the position accepted by the school management in Writ Petition No.311 of 2021 instituted by Surekha. 30. This shifting stance of the management justifies Ms. Pednekar’s contention that the management is bent upon depriving Surekha of promotion to the post of Principal. This stance on the part of the management is not only contrary to the records but contrary to the position accepted by the school management in Writ Petition No.311 of 2021 instituted by Surekha. 30. This shifting stance of the management justifies Ms. Pednekar’s contention that the management is bent upon depriving Surekha of promotion to the post of Principal. This stance of the school management gives an impression that the school management is indeed bent upon deferring the meeting of the DPC until Surekha attains the age of superannuation on 31.03.2022 so that her case would then not be required to be considered for the promotion to the post of Principal. Normally, in a matter of this nature, the role of the school management should not be to take sides but instead to place on record the true factual position and its perception about the legal position on the issue. 31. The School management, in this case, however, appears to be bent upon depriving Surekha of her right to be considered for the promotion to the post of Principal and, thereby, even to defeat the directions issued by this Court in its order dated 22.09.2021 in Writ Petition No.311 of 2021. Mr. Rao did point out that Rajan was not even a party to Writ Petition No.311 of 2021 and therefore, the order therein ought not to bind him. Rajan is not being denied relief due to the order in the said writ petition even though it is quite difficult to accept that Rajan was not aware of the controversy for promotion to the post of principal and the institution of the said petition or the order made therein. Rajan’s contention about how he should not suffer for the fault of the school management also does not, at least in the facts of the present case, appeal to us. 32. Rajan now seeks to benefit from the shifting stance of the school management that was very much a party to the said Petition. The management that today, with much vehemence, supports the case of Rajan, was very much a party to the said petition and it accepted without any demur that Surekha was the senior-most eligible teacher in the feeder cadre. If any representation had really been received from Rajan by 22.09.2021, the management would have certainly pointed out the same. The management that today, with much vehemence, supports the case of Rajan, was very much a party to the said petition and it accepted without any demur that Surekha was the senior-most eligible teacher in the feeder cadre. If any representation had really been received from Rajan by 22.09.2021, the management would have certainly pointed out the same. At least some contention would have been raised that Rajan was senior to Surekha in the feeder cadre. The absence of all this indicates that Rajan has been put up belatedly, only to delay or deny promotion to Surekha and possibly even to defeat the mandamus issued in Writ Petition No. 311 of 2021. 33. Though, we may not agree with Ms. Pednekar’s contention about the regularization of the services of the petitioner - Rajan, even reference to the regularization order dated 18.07.2002 makes it clear that the approval granted for regularization was as “full-time teacher” in the vocational stream. Similarly, even the communication dated 31.05.2019 by which DOE approved the grant of selection scale to the petitioner - Rajan describes him as a “full-time teacher” (AA). 34. Significantly, even though there is no position of Vice- Principal (vocational stream) contemplated either under the said Act or the said Rules, the petitioner - Rajan was promoted to this post sometime in the year 2000 and has been enjoying the benefits and the Perks available to the said position of Vice-Principal for last 22 years. This position of Vice-Principal is to be found only in the staffing pattern annexed to circular dated 28.04.1988 by which the vocational stream was introduced in the State of Goa. Thus, the petitioner - Rajan has not only accepted the position that the vocational stream was always to be regarded as a separate and distinct stream but further the petitioner - Rajan has taken advantage of this separateness by securing a promotion way back in the year 2000 itself to the post of Vice-Principal, which is a position contemplated only under the vocational stream and not the regular-stream. 35. 35. The advertisement issued by the school management on 23.06.1988 or the approval granted by DOE in the year 1988 or the appointment order issued by the management in the year 1988 will therefore have to be construed in the context of the aforesaid overwhelming material on record that establishes how not only in the said school but in all schools in the State of Goa, the vocational stream has been regarded as separate and distinct from the general stream. Based upon reference to approval as grade I teacher therefore the petitioner - Rajan at this belated stage cannot insist upon eligibility for promotion to the post of Principal in the said school. 36. The nomenclature in these two or three communications cannot make Rajan a Grade I teacher and render him eligible for promotion in the general stream. At no stage since the introduction of the vocational stream in the said school or for that matter in all the schools in the state of Goa in 1988-89 has there been any interchanging between the teachers from the vocational stream and the general stream. Their qualifications for initial appointments and promotional avenues have been different and distinct. Merely because they were treated at par with the teachers from the general stream for extension of financial benefits, that by itself and without anything more cannot entitle them to seek promotion in the general stream after having availed of the promotional avenues exclusive to the vocational stream. 37. The Director of Education, in his affidavit, has made it abundantly clear that right from the date of introduction of the vocational stream in the schools in the State of Goa, that is from 1988, no teacher from the vocational course has been considered eligible to the post of Principal of higher secondary nor has any teacher from the vocational stream been promoted to the post of Principal of higher secondary. The Director has made it clear that the introduction of the vocational stream was not in that sense in the exercise of any specified powers under the said Act or under the said Rules but this stream was introduced under a central government scheme that was adopted by the State government. 38. The Office Memorandum dated 10.06.2002 relied upon by Mr. 38. The Office Memorandum dated 10.06.2002 relied upon by Mr. Padgaonkar, in the first place, concerns the issue of extension of service benefits to the staff of vocational education stream in the context of financial benefits like pension. This is, in fact, clear from the operative portion of the Office Memorandum, which deals mainly with the extension of pensionary benefits to such employees. 39. Similarly, the construction suggested by the learned Advocate General on the circular dated 29.05.1992 appears quite reasonable to us, particularly, if the circular dated 29.05.1992 is to be considered along with the other material placed on record concerning the genesis of the vocational stream and the consistent practice by which the staff of the vocational stream has been treated as different and distinct from the staff of the general stream. The staff of the vocational stream in terms of the scheme have availed all separate promotional avenues all this while. Therefore, at this stage, based upon the Office Memorandum dated 10.06.2002 and the circular dated 29.05.1992 it would not be appropriate to confer any eligibility on the petitioner when it comes to promotion to the post of Principal of the said school. 40. In K.S. Mahalingegowda & Ors. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court even rejected the claim for parity of service conditions by the vocational teachers by holding that such a claim was “wholly misconceived”. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that it is entirely within the executive domain of the State Government to take a policy decision and frame any scheme for the benefit of the people of the State. The vocational training scheme is one of such schemes. The avowed object of the scheme is to provide vocational training for a period of one/two years to the students who do not wish to pursue academic studies beyond 10th class. It is a useful scheme which helps young men to acquire eligibility for employment in skilled jobs while they are still in the educational institutions. The scheme was a result of the policy decision of the State Government. It was entirely for the State Government to lay down as to what type of teaching staff was required to implement the scheme; duration of the scheme, the financial involvement, type of the vocational training and various other aspects must have been taken into consideration by the State Government while providing the mechanism to implement the scheme. 41. It was entirely for the State Government to lay down as to what type of teaching staff was required to implement the scheme; duration of the scheme, the financial involvement, type of the vocational training and various other aspects must have been taken into consideration by the State Government while providing the mechanism to implement the scheme. 41. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, upon examining the scheme, also held that even otherwise there was no parity and on facts between the vocational teachers under the scheme and other teaching staff in the educational institution. The Court also accepted the case of the State Government that vocational training scheme is inherently temporary in nature because the courses which form part of the scheme are flexible in nature. They are need-based by reference to the needs of the region and mass of the courses would cease to be relevant after certain time frame. It is entirely for the Central Government or the State Government to take a decision in this respect. 42. The above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court to a certain extent supports the contentions now put forth by the learned Advocate General for the State and Ms. Pednekar for respondent No.5. 43. As noted earlier, right from the introduction of the vocational stream in the year 1988, the school management has prepared a separate seniority list. The record indicates that at no stage, except in the year 2021, the petitioner - Rajan protested against the adoption of this consistent course of action by the school management. It is only at a very belated stage, in the year 2021, for the first time the petitioner raised the issue about any fault in the preparation of the seniority list. The representation made by the petitioner to the DOE was quite correctly rejected in this case. 44. Even the school management had sought clarification from the DOE based on the circular dated 29.05.1992. The Director had clarified in no uncertain terms about the requirements for maintaining a separate seniority list way back on 24.04.2013. This is evident from the communication dated 18.03.2013 placed on record by respondent no.5, and the response dated 24.04.2013 to the same. Neither the school management nor petitioner - Rajan ever chose to challenge this position. The Director had clarified in no uncertain terms about the requirements for maintaining a separate seniority list way back on 24.04.2013. This is evident from the communication dated 18.03.2013 placed on record by respondent no.5, and the response dated 24.04.2013 to the same. Neither the school management nor petitioner - Rajan ever chose to challenge this position. Therefore, it is now too late in the day to contend that even petitioner - Rajan should be regarded as the senior-most teacher in the feeder cadre. 45. The learned Advocate General also points out to the circular/communication dated 05.07.1989 issued by the Goa Board of Secondary And Higher Secondary Education prescribing qualifications for teachers in the vocational stream. A perusal does indicate that the qualifications prescribed are not in any manner comparable with the qualifications prescribed for grade I teachers or trained graduate teachers in the regular stream. More pertinently, the teachers in the vocational stream need not have training qualifications like B.Ed. or D.Ed. as essential qualifications. 46. The rulings in Pratibha Agranayak (supra) and Malini Xete (supra) do not assist Rajan because he is not the senior- most teacher in the feeder cadre. The view taken in these two cases was reiterated in the order dated 22.09.2021 in WP No. 311 of 2021 instituted by Surekha. The two rulings, therefore, assist the case of Surekha than Rajan. Similarly, N. Ganesan (supra) turns on its own facts where on the recommendation of the Director of School Education itself, a decision was in force to treat the Vocational Instructors possessing requisite qualification on par with B.T. Assistants for further promotion. As noted earlier, such a position is not to be found in the facts of the present case. 47. Upon cumulative consideration of all the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we see no merit in this petition and consequently dismiss the same. 48. The School management is now directed to take immediate steps to convene a DPC and consider the case of Surekha for promotion to the post of Principal. The Director of Education should render all possible cooperation in this regard. This direction is nothing but a reiteration of the directions issued by us in our order dated 22.09.2021 in Writ Petition No.311 of 2021. This exercise must be concluded before 24.03.2022. 49. This is a fit case to direct the school management to pay costs to respondent no.5 Surekha. This direction is nothing but a reiteration of the directions issued by us in our order dated 22.09.2021 in Writ Petition No.311 of 2021. This exercise must be concluded before 24.03.2022. 49. This is a fit case to direct the school management to pay costs to respondent no.5 Surekha. However, in the fond hope that school management will refrain from taking any contradictory stances in the future and go to this extent to deny a lady teacher who has put in 32 years of service her promotion before she retires on 31.03.2022, we refrain from imposing any costs on this occasion. The rule is discharged. 50. All concerned to act on the authenticated copy of this order.