JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. In these writ applications, the petitioner prays to grant her promotion to the post of Headmistress in Jagdish Chandra High School, Ghatshila, a Government Minority Aided School and also she prays that the pay-scale of the Headmistress be granted to her and the arrears be paid as she has already superannuated. 3. The facts are admitted in this case. Jagdish Chandra High School is a minority aided school. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the same school on 21.12.1980. Her appointment as an Assistant Teacher was duly approved by the State Government. The regular Headmistress of the school superannuated and the post of Headmistress fell vacant. The Managing Committee in order to fill up the post of Headmistress considered the case of the petitioner, as the petitioner was the senior most Assistant Teacher of the said school and decided to promote her to the post of Headmistress vide meeting dated 21.08.2007. A decision to that effect was communicated by letter dated 15.02.2007 by the Secretary of the said school. An approval was also sought for from the Government to approve the appointment of the petitioner as Principal. 4. During the intervening period the new Managing Committee of the said school took charge and there was some dispute and differences between the new body and the old one which resulted in delay in approval. The file of the petitioner which sought for approval, was returned by the Department before the Managing Committee. After the dispute between the Managing Committee was resolved, the new Managing Committee again recommended the petitioner for appointing her as the Principal. The said resolution was pending before the Government but in the meantime on 31.01.2009 the petitioner superannuated. The petitioner thus prayed that approval which was sought for be granted and the recommendation be acted upon and the petitioner be promoted to the post of Headmistress from the date when she was officiating as Headmistress of the said school. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State at length, I find that though there was recommendation by the Managing Committee but the said recommendation needed an approval of the State. Without the approval of the State the petitioner could not have been promoted to the post of Headmistress. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the State at length, I find that though there was recommendation by the Managing Committee but the said recommendation needed an approval of the State. Without the approval of the State the petitioner could not have been promoted to the post of Headmistress. Admittedly till the superannuation of the petitioner, no approval was accorded by the Government. 6. Now the petitioner has already superannuated. In the case of Government of West Bengal and Others v. Dr. Amal Satpathi and Others , 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court after going through several judgments has held that right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right but the employee does not hold an absolute right to the promotion itself. The facts of the aforesaid case is that an employee therein was recommended for promotion but before the recommendation was approved he superannuated. Thus, he prayed that he be promoted and all the benefits be given. The Hon’ble Supreme Court on the aforesaid facts of the case has held that promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when the vacancy is created. It has been further held that the promotion only becomes effective upon assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that since the employee has superannuated before his promotion was effectuated, he is not entitled to receive the financial benefits associated to the promotional post. 7. In the instant case, facts are also similar. The petitioner was recommended for promotion but ultimately the Authority which had to approve could not approve the same, whatever be the reason, till the petitioner superannuated. Now the petitioner has already superannuated thus ultimately her promotion was not effectuated. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for. 8. So far as the petitioner is concerned she was officiating as the Headmistress. If there is any provision for paying officiating allowance the same is payable to the petitioner. So far as the fixation of pay and recovery of the salary is concerned, since the petitioner has already superannuated no amount can be recovered from her salary. 8. So far as the petitioner is concerned she was officiating as the Headmistress. If there is any provision for paying officiating allowance the same is payable to the petitioner. So far as the fixation of pay and recovery of the salary is concerned, since the petitioner has already superannuated no amount can be recovered from her salary. So far as fixation of the pension is concerned that should be fixed at admissible pay-scale. 9. With the aforesaid observations, both these writ petitions are disposed of.