JUDGMENT AND ORDER : MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, J. Heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. R. M.Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department. Also heard Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the office of the Accountant General in WP(C) Nos. 5804/2022 and 295/2023 and Mr. R. K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the office of the Accountant General in WP(C) No. 2789/2024. 2. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned statement made in para 3 of the additional affidavit filed by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Higher (Technical) Education Department on 10.04.2024 in WP(C) 5804/2022, which is to the effect that due to withdrawal of the OM dated 28.03.2022, the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Professor, vide notification dated 05.04.2022, ceased to have any effect. The petitioner has also prayed for setting aside the OM dated 19.05.2023, by which the earlier OM dated 28.03.2022, has been withdrawn by the State respondents. 3. The impugned paragraph 3 of the additional affidavit filed by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Higher (Technical) Education Department in WP(C) 5804/2022 is reproduced herein below as follows:- “ 3. That the Deponent begs to state that consequence upon withdrawal of the O.M dated 28/03/2022, the Notification No. ATE.06/2022/32 dated 05/04/2022 has also ceased to have any effect and as such the case of the Petitioner cannot be considered in respect of the said O.M. No.ATE.06/2022/27 dated 28/03/2022.” 4. The petitioner’s case is that he was initially working as an Associate Professor in Jorhat Engineering College and at the relevant point of time, he was working as Principal (in-charge) in Golaghat Engineering College. In terms of the relevant Rules, an Associate Professor is to retire at the age of 60 years and the petitioner’s retirement date was 31.03.2022. However, in terms of the OM dated 29.07.2021, issued by the Government of Assam, Higher (Technical) Education Department, the superannuation age of a Professor, who has been promoted through Career Advancement Schemes (CAS), had been raised from 60 years to 65 years. 5. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the Departmental Promotion Committee had considered the petitioner for promotion from the post of Associate Professor to Professor under CAS, one day before the retirement date of the petitioner, i.e., 30.03.2022. 5. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the Departmental Promotion Committee had considered the petitioner for promotion from the post of Associate Professor to Professor under CAS, one day before the retirement date of the petitioner, i.e., 30.03.2022. The petitioner was thereafter released from service as Associate Professor on 31.03.2022. However, the petitioner was subsequently promoted to the post of Professor, vide order dated 05.04.2022, w.e.f., 17.05.2018, pursuant to the O.M dated 28.03.2022, which had partially modified the O.M dated 17.01.2018. 6. The OM dated 28.03.2022 adopting the AICTE public notice, extended the date for completion of short term training programs, orientation, refreshers course, for promotion of faculty members of engineering college and polytechnics under Career Advancement Schemes, from 07.11.2015 to 31.12.2018. The O.M dated 28.03.2022 states as follows:- “No.ATF 68/2013/27 Dated Dispur, the 28th March, 2022 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Adoption of AICTE Public Notice regarding requirement/Extension of date for completing Short Term Training Programs Orientation Refreshers Course for promotion of Faculty members of Engineering College and Polytechnics under Career Advancement Schemes. Partial modification and addition of OM No. ATE-68/2013/780 dated 17/01/2018, regarding Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) for teachers eligible for promotion under CAS for the period 01/01/2006 to 7th November 2015 shall be extended upto 31/12/2018 for participation/completion in Orientation/ Refresher Courses/ Short Term Training Programmes/ Continuous Education Programmes for promotion under CAS upto 31/12/2018 with respect to 6th CPC for faculty members/ Librarians/ PTIs in Degree/ Diploma Level Institutions as per Public Notice by UGC vide Public Notice 2-16/2002(PS)/Pt.FI.II dated 16th October 2018 and by vide F. NO.P7AP/Public Notice/CAS/571/2021 dated 05/08/2021.” 7. The petitioner’s counsel submits that in view of the petitioner having been promoted to the post of Professor w.e.f., 17.05.2018, the petitioner’s retirement age had to be extended to 65 years i.e., till 31.03.2027. However, the State respondents cancelled the O.M dated 28.03.2022 vide O.M dated 19.05.2023. As the OM dated 28.03.2022 had been cancelled, pursuant to a subsequent OM dated 19.05.2023, the petitioner’s promotion order dated 05.04.2022 ceased to have any effect. As such, the petitioner was deemed to have retired w.e.f., 31.03.2022. 8. However, the State respondents cancelled the O.M dated 28.03.2022 vide O.M dated 19.05.2023. As the OM dated 28.03.2022 had been cancelled, pursuant to a subsequent OM dated 19.05.2023, the petitioner’s promotion order dated 05.04.2022 ceased to have any effect. As such, the petitioner was deemed to have retired w.e.f., 31.03.2022. 8. The petitioner’s counsel submits that a reading of the O.Ms dated 17.01.2018, 28.03.2022 and the O.M dated 19.05.2023 goes to show that the O.Ms dated 28.03.2022 and 19.05.2023 only relate to the extension of time for completing short term training programs/ orientation/refreshers courses for promotion of Faculty Members under the CAS from 07.11.2015 (as provided in the O.M dated 17.01.2018) to 31.12.2018. The petitioner’s promotion however having been made w.e.f. 17.05.2018, the same clearly goes to show that the petitioner had completed the required short term training program etc., as on 17.05.2018, i.e., prior to 31.12.2018, in terms of the O.M dated 28.03.2022. As such, the two O.Ms dated 28.03.2022 and 19.05.2023 being similar in content they were applicable to the petitioner’s case for promotion under the CAS, from the post of Associate Professor to Professor. 9. The petitioner’s counsel submits that as the petitioner had been given a promotion order after his retirement w.e.f. 17.05.2018, the petitioner would have the right to draw the salary of Professor only from 05.04.2022, i.e., from the date he actually did the work of Professor. In this respect, he has relied upon the analogy that can be drawn from Fundamental Rules 17 applicable to the employees under the Government of Assam and submits that the provision therein can be made applicable to the petitioner’s case. 10. The petitioner’s counsel further submits that though the time period for participating/completing the orientation/ refresher course/short term training programmes/continuous education programmes for promotion under the CAS had been extended up to 31.12.2018, in terms of the earlier O.M. dated 28.03.2022, which had been cancelled, the extension period up to 31.12.2018 vide the subsequent O.M. dated 19.05.2023, has been approved by the Finance (PRU) Department. He submits, in the alternative, that when there has been an ex post facto approval, for completion of the various training programmes, orientation and refresher courses up to 31.12.2018, the same would automatically apply to the petitioner. 11. The learned Sr. He submits, in the alternative, that when there has been an ex post facto approval, for completion of the various training programmes, orientation and refresher courses up to 31.12.2018, the same would automatically apply to the petitioner. 11. The learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner submits that an approval to an act on a decision can be made prior to or subsequent to the act or decision. As such, even though the approval of the Finance (PRU) Department may not have been taken when the earlier O.M. dated 28.03.2022 had been made, the same was made with the approval of the government. As such, the earlier O.M. dated 28.03.2022 being made with the approval of the State government, sans the Finance Department, they had the power to determine the terms and conditions of service of the petitioner and obtain the approval of the Finance Department subsequently. If the Finance Department did not give it’s approval subsequently, then the action of the State respondents could be deemed to be invalid. However, as the earlier decision to adopt the last date for completing the training programmes etc., as reflected in the O.M. dated 28.03.2022, has been approved by the Finance Department in the O.M. dated 19.05.2023, the subsequent determination of the terms and conditions of service of the petitioner by the State government, which resulted in the promotion of the petitioner to Professor, had been validated by the subsequent O.M. dated 19.05.2023. In this regard, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Das & Ors. Vs. University of Burdwan & Ors., reported in (2010) 3 SCC 616 . 12. The learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalaram & Ors. Vs. Jaipur Development Authority & Anr., reported in (2016) 11 SCC 31 , in support of his submission that the Rules of Executive Business are directory and not mandatory. 13. The petitioner’s counsel thus prays for setting aside the impugned statement made in Para 3 of the additional affidavit filed by the respondent No.1 on 10.04.2024 in WP(C) No.5804/2022 and for setting aside the impugned O.M. dated 19.05.2023. 14. Mr. 13. The petitioner’s counsel thus prays for setting aside the impugned statement made in Para 3 of the additional affidavit filed by the respondent No.1 on 10.04.2024 in WP(C) No.5804/2022 and for setting aside the impugned O.M. dated 19.05.2023. 14. Mr. S. Das, learned counsel for the Higher Education Department, on the other hand, submits that the recommendation for promotion of the petitioner by the DPC is only a recommendation and the petitioner cannot be said to be promoted to the post of Professor on the date of the recommendation made by the DPC. He submits that the petitioner can be said to be promoted as Professor, only from the date the petitioner assumes the duties of the promotional post. He further submits that as the promotion of the petitioner had been made after his retirement, on the basis of the OMs dated 17.01.2018 and 28.03.2022, the subsequent withdrawal of the OM dated 28.03.2022 by the OM dated 19.05.2023, rendered the promotion order of the petitioner void. 15. The counsel for the respondents further submits that the AICTE, vide letter dated 09.08.2021, had taken a decision to extend the date for completing the short term training programs/orientation/refreshers courses/ continuing education programme, for promotion of Faculty Members under the CAS up to 31.12.2018, as the UGC, vide public notice dated 16.10.2018, had extended the same up to 31.12.2018. Prior to the AICTE letter dated 09.08.2021, the date of completion of the short term training programs etc., as per Serial No. 11 of the AICTE Gazette Notification dated 21.05.2020, was 07.11.2015. The Director of Education (Technical), Assam had thereafter forwarded the proposal to extend the time limit as per the AICTE letter dated 09.08.2021, by which it was decided to extend the date for completing short term training programs/orientation/refreshers courses/continuing education programme, for promotion under the CAS to 31.12.2018, to the Principal Secretary, Government of Assam, Department of Education, so that the Government of Assam could adopt the AICTE recommendation. 16. The respondents’ counsel submits that it was only by way of OM dated 28.03.2022 that the recommendation of the AICTE, for extension of the date for completing short term training programs/orientation/refreshers courses/ continuing education programme, for promotion under the CAS till 31.12.2018 was approved by the Government of Assam. However, the OM dated 28.03.2022 had to be approved by the Finance Department (PRU) as financial expenditure was involved. However, the OM dated 28.03.2022 had to be approved by the Finance Department (PRU) as financial expenditure was involved. As the same was not done in terms of Rule 10 of the Assam Rules of Executive Business, 1968, which had been amended up to 27.07.1995. The OM dated 28.03.2022 could not be applied and be given effect to. The petitioner, who had completed his short term training program/orientation/refresher course only on 17.05.2018, had been given the benefit of being considered for promotion from Associate Professor to Professor, only in view of the extension of time for completing the short term training programs etc. being given in terms of the OM dated 28.03.2022. However, when the OM dated 28.03.2022 was cancelled and became invalid, the very basis to consider the petitioner for promotion disappeared, as the earlier OM dated 17.01.2018 was revived, which allowed for consideration of promotion under CAS, only to those persons who had completed their orientation/refresher courses/short term training programmes between 01.01.2006 and 07.11.2015. 17. The respondents’ counsel further submits that the OM dated 19.05.2023, has subsequently adopted the AICTE resolution, wherein the time limit for completing short term training programs/orientation/refreshers courses/continuing education programme has been extended up to 31.12.2018. The same was also approved by the Finance Department. As such only the OM dated 19.05.2023 is valid and not the earlier OM dated 28.03.2022. 18. The extension of time for completion of the short term training program/continuing education programme etc., was made applicable under the Government of Assam, only by way of subsequent OM dated 19.05.2023, after getting the approval of the Finance Department. As the petitioner’s promotion has been made prior to 19.05.2023, the promotion order of the petitioner was bad in law, in view of the fact that the petitioner had completed short term training programs/orientation/refreshers courses/continuing education programmes, for promotion of Faculty Members under the Career Advancement Scheme only on 17.05.2018, during which time, the relevant notification under All India Council for Technical Education, vide serial No. 11 of AICTE Gazette notification dated 21.05.2020, had clarified that one time extension for completion of the above programs had been given until 07.11.2015 only. As the petitioner had not completed his short term training programs/orientation/refreshers courses/continuing education programme, for promotion under the CAS prior to or on 07.11.2015, the petitioner could not have been promoted to the post of Professor, on the ground that he had completed the above programmes before 31.12.2018, inasmuch as, the extended period of time for completing the above programmes beyond 07.11.2015 was made applicable, only in terms of the OM dated 19.05.2023. 19. The counsel for the Higher Education Department submits that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Government of West Bengal and Ors. Vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi and Ors., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512 , promotion only becomes effective upon assumption of duties on the promotional posts and not on the date of occurrence of vacancy or the date of recommendation. Promotion cannot be retrospectively granted after retirement, as it requires actual assumption of duties and responsibilities of the promotional posts prior to retirement. 20. The counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner having completed his training only on 17.05.2018, the basis for the petitioner’s promotion is lost by the cancellation of the O.M. dated 28.03.2022. Just because the O.M. dated 19.05.2023 had also adopted the extension period for training to 31.12.2018 in terms of the earlier cancelled/withdrawn O.M. dated 28.03.2022, did not mean that the benefit of extension could be given to the petitioner, as the petitioner had retired on 31.03.2022, while the adoption of the extended period of time had been validly made only by way of the OM dated 19.05.2023, i.e., after his retirement. He accordingly prays that the writ petition should be dismissed. 21. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 22. Rule 10 of the Assam Rules of Executive Business, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Executive Rules’) provides as follows:- “(1) No department shall, without previous consultation with the Finance Department, authorise any orders (other than orders issued under any Act or Rules made thereunder, or pursuant to any general or specific delegation made by the Finance Department) which - (a) either immediately or by their repercussion, will affect the finances of the State, or which, in particular - (i) involve any grant of land or assessment of revenue or concession, grant, lease or privilege in respect of such concession; (ii) in any way involve any relinquishment of revenue; o? (b) relate to the number or grading of cadre of posts or the emoluments or other conditions of services of posts; (c) involve the addition of a post in the Public Service or the variation of emoluments of any posts; (d) involve the sanction of an allowance or special or personal pay for any posts or class of posts or to any employee of the Government of Assam; (e) involve an expenditure for which no provision has been made in the Appropriation Act or which is in excess of the provision made in the Act. (2) No proposal, which requires the previous consultation with the Finance Department under this Rule, but in which the Finance Department has not concurred, may be proceeded with unless a decision to that effect has been taken by the Cabinet. (3) No re-appropriation shall be made by any department other than the Finance Department, except in accordance with such general delegation as the Finance Department may have made. (4) Except to the extent that power may have been delegated to the Department under rules approved by the Finance Department, every order of an administrative Department conveying a sanction to be enforced in audit shall be communicated to the audit authorities by the Finance Department. (5) Nothing in this Rule shall be construed as authorising any Department including the Finance Department, to make re-appropriations from one grant specified in the Appropriation Act to another such grant or from a charged Appropriation to a votable Appropriation.” 23. The notification dated 05.04.2022 promoting the petitioner from the post of Assistant Professor to Professor states as follows:- “NOTIFICATION No.ATE.06/2022/32: Dated Dispur, the 5th April 2022 On recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee Meeting held on 30-03-2022, the following Associate Professor (Stage 4) to Professor (Stage 5) from (G.P Rs.9000/- to G.P Rs.10,000/-) for promotion to Teacher (Technical) of State Engineering Colleges under Career Advancement Scheme as per provision of Govt. O.? ??.???.68/2013/780 dated 17/01/2018 and O.M No.ATE.06/2022/27 dated 28/03/2022 w.e.f from the date mentioned against their names. Promotion of Associate Professor (Stage 4) to Professor (Stage 5) Rs.9000/- to Rs.10,000/- G.P of State Engineering College under CAS. Name and Designation Date of Eligibility Dr. Satyajit Paul, Associate Professor, JEC, Jorhat, i/c Principal, Golaghat Engineering College, Golaghat 17/05/2018 Sd/- Anjali Saikia Baruah, ACS Joint Secretary to the Government ofAssam Higher Education (Technical) Department.” 24. Promotion of Associate Professor (Stage 4) to Professor (Stage 5) Rs.9000/- to Rs.10,000/- G.P of State Engineering College under CAS. Name and Designation Date of Eligibility Dr. Satyajit Paul, Associate Professor, JEC, Jorhat, i/c Principal, Golaghat Engineering College, Golaghat 17/05/2018 Sd/- Anjali Saikia Baruah, ACS Joint Secretary to the Government ofAssam Higher Education (Technical) Department.” 24. The OM dated 19.05.2023 cancelling the earlier OM dated 28.03.2022 and at the same time adopting the AICTE public notice regarding the extension of date for completing short term training programs orientation refreshers course for promotion of faculty members of engineering college and polytechnics under career advancement schemes to 31.12.2018 states as follows:- “eFile No197594/1 Dated Dispur, the 19 May, 2023 OFFICE MEMORANDUM Sub: Adoption of AICTE Public Notice regarding requirement/Extension of date for completing Short Term Training Programs/ Orientation/ Refreshers Course for promotion of Faculty Members of Engineering Colleges and Polytechnics under Career Advancement Schemes. In cancellation of earller Govt. O.M. No. ATE.06/2022/27 dated 28/3/2022 and in partial modification of the OM No. ATE-68/2013/780 dated 17/01/2018, regarding the Career Advancement Scheme (CAS) for teachers eligible for promotion under CAS for the period 01/01/2006 to 07/11/2015, the date of requirement for participation/ completion in Orientation/ Refresher Courses/ Short Term Training Programmes/ Continuous Education Programmes for promotion under CAS is hereby extended up to 31/12/2018 with respect to the 6 CPC for faculty members/ Librarians/ PTIs in Degree/ Diploma Level Institutions as per Public Notice Issued by UGC vide Public Notice 2-16/2002(PS)/Pt.F1.II dated 16* October 2018 and by AICTE vide F. NO. P&AP/Public Notice/CAS/571/2021 dated 05/08/2021. This has the approval of the Finance (PRU) Department vide their e-File No.153735.” 25. As can be seen from the submissions made by the counsels for the parties and the pleadings, the petitioner had retired on 31.02.2022. The petitioner could be considered for promotion to the post of Professor under the CAS one day prior to his retirement date, only due to the OM dated 28.03.2022, which had extended the date of participation/completion in Orientation/Refresher Courses/Short Term Training Programmes etc. upto 31.12.2018 and as the petitioner had completed the same on 17.05.2018. Thus, if the cancellation of the OM dated 28.03.2022 is held to be valid by this Court, the petitioner could not have been considered for promotion, as the eligibility criteria for consideration would have disappeared. 26. upto 31.12.2018 and as the petitioner had completed the same on 17.05.2018. Thus, if the cancellation of the OM dated 28.03.2022 is held to be valid by this Court, the petitioner could not have been considered for promotion, as the eligibility criteria for consideration would have disappeared. 26. Thus, the question that has to be decided is whether there was any infirmity in the cancellation of the OM dated 28.03.2022, on the basis of which the petitioner could be considered for promotion to the post of Professor. It is the case of the respondents that the OM dated 28.03.2022 was not approved by the Finance (PRU) Department even though financial expenditure was involved. In terms of Rule 10 of the Executive Rules, no department can authorise any orders without the previous consultation of the Finance Department, which affects the finances of the State or involves relinquishment of revenue. This is however subject to the condition that the Cabinet has taken a decision for authorising any order which involves expenditure, when the Finance Department has not concurred with such decision. In the present case, there is nothing to show that the Finance Department has been consulted with the contents of the OM dated 28.03.2022. There is no approval given to the same by the Finance Department and there is also nothing to show that a Cabinet decision has been made for notifying the OM dated 28.03.2022. The “Executive Rules” having been made in exercise of the powers conferred by Clauses 2 & 3 of Article 166 of the Constitution of India, the State respondents were bound to give effect to the provisions of the “Executive Rules”. As the OM dated 28.03.2022 had not been approved by the Finance Department prior to it’s Notification as per Rule 10 of the “Executive Rules”, there is no infirmity found in the cancellation of the OM dated 28.03.2022 by the subsequent OM dated 19.05.2023, as a proper meaning and implementation of the “Executive Rules” has to be given/done. However, the fact remains that the petitioner had been promoted on 05.04.2022 to the post of Professor w.e.f 17.05.2018, vide order dated 05.04.2022, due to being recommended for promotion, pursuant to the OM dated 28.03.2022. However, the fact remains that the petitioner had been promoted on 05.04.2022 to the post of Professor w.e.f 17.05.2018, vide order dated 05.04.2022, due to being recommended for promotion, pursuant to the OM dated 28.03.2022. Thus, when the petitioner could not have been considered for promotion due to the OM dated 28.03.2022 having been cancelled and which revived the earlier OM dated 17.01.2018, the promotion made on the basis of the cancelled/invalid OM cannot stand on it’s own legs. 27. In the case of Union of India & Another vs. Tulsiram Patel , reported in (1985) 3 SCC 398 , the Supreme Court has held that the source of power must exist for it’s exercise. As the O.M dated 28.03.2022 has been held to be invalid as the same was not made in terms of the “Executive Rules”, the eligibility criteria provided therein which led to the petitioner becoming eligible for consideration for promotion, had been made in the absence of a source of power. As such, the assumption of office/post of Professor by the petitioner on the basis of the cancelled O.M dated 28.03.2022 after his retirement, cannot give any sanctity to the promotion order dated 05.04.2022. Though the contents of the OM dated 28.03.2022 and 19.05.2023 are basically same, any action taken under the OM dated 28.03.2022 has to be considered to be invalid as the same was not made in terms of the “Executive Rules”. Further, as the petitioner had retired on 31.03.2022, the OM dated19.05.2023 is not attracted to the petitioner’s case. 28. The next question that arises for consideration is as to whether it can be said that the petitioner was validly promoted after his retirement date and whether the petitioner could be promoted retrospectively. 29. The facts of the case in Government of West Bengal & Others vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Others , reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3512, was that Public Service Commission recommended the respondent no.1 therein for promotion on 29.12.2016. The respondent no.1 retired on superannuation on 31.12.2016. The Government Department received the final approval for promotion of the respondent no.1 on 04.01.2017, i.e. after the retirement of the respondent no.1 therein. Respondent no.1 made a representation to give effect to his promotion. The same was rejected by the Finance Department, Government of West Bengal as follows: “In terms of rule 54(1)(a) of W.B.S.R. Part-I, a Govt. The Government Department received the final approval for promotion of the respondent no.1 on 04.01.2017, i.e. after the retirement of the respondent no.1 therein. Respondent no.1 made a representation to give effect to his promotion. The same was rejected by the Finance Department, Government of West Bengal as follows: “In terms of rule 54(1)(a) of W.B.S.R. Part-I, a Govt. employee shall not draw pay higher than that of his permanent post unless the officiating appointment involves the assumption of duties and responsibilities of greater importance. In the instant case Dr. Amal Satpathi could not join to the promotional post within his service tenure. He retired on superannuation on 31.12.2016. As a result officiation to the higher post with greater responsibilities and importance does not arise. As such appointment on promotion after retirement with retrospective effect cannot be awarded for Gr. -'A' posts. We are, therefore, of the same opinion stated by F.A., dated 16.2.2017." 30. Aggrieved by the denial of the benefits flowing from promotion, the respondent no.1 Dr. Amal Satpathi approached the Tribunal. Though the Tribunal acknowledged the fact that the respondent no.1 had been duly recommended for promotion prior to his superannuation, the promotion order was delayed due to procedural obstruction beyond his control. Thus while the actual promotion of the petitioner was not acceded to by the Tribunal, it directed that the respondent no.1 should be granted notional financial benefits of the promotional post w.e.f. the last date of his service, that was 31.12.2016. The challenge made to the High Court by the Government of West Bengal was dismissed. The Government of West Bengal then approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in the above case of Dr. Amal Satpathi (supra) held that it is a well settled principle that promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted, rather than from the date a vacancy arises or the post is created. While the Courts have recognized the right to be considered for promotion is not only a statutory right but also a fundamental right, there is no fundamental right to the promotion itself. It further held that promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation. It further held that promotion only becomes effective upon the assumption of duties on the promotional post and not on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or the date of recommendation. It thus held that as the respondent no.1 in the above case had superannuated before his promotion was effectuated, the respondent no.1 was not entitled to retrospective financial benefits associated to the promotional post, as he did not serve in that capacity. 31. In the case of State of Bihar vs Akhouri Sachindra Nath , reported in 1991 Supp (1) SCC 334, the Supreme Court has held that retrospective seniority cannot be given to an employee from a date when he was not even borne in the cadre. 32. In the case of State of Uttaranchal Forest Rangers’ Association (Direct Recruit) vs. State of U.P , reported in (2006) 10 SCC 346 , the Supreme Court has held that no retrospective promotion or seniority can be granted from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre so as to adversely affect the direct recruits appointed validly in the meantime. 33. In the present case, the petitioner having retired from service as an Assistant Professor, there is no enabling provision shown to this Court, by either of the parties, that a person who has retired can be promoted after his retirement date and that too with retrospective effect. When a person has left the service on retirement, he would have to be considered to have severed ties with the service, except for grant of pensionary and other service benefits and unless there is a Departmental Proceeding or criminal case pending against him. No Rules have been shown where promotion can be given to retired employees. Though the petitioner may have been recommended for promotion prior to his retirement, on the basis of the OM dated 28.03.2022 which was subsequently cancelled, vide OM dated 19.05.2023, the promotion order was issued after his retirement. As such, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, the promotion of the petitioner after his retirement is held to be invalid. However, in view of the petitioner having been promoted and allowed to serve as Professor by the State respondents, the petitioner would have to be paid his salary for services rendered by him, in terms of the principle of quantum meruit. However, in view of the petitioner having been promoted and allowed to serve as Professor by the State respondents, the petitioner would have to be paid his salary for services rendered by him, in terms of the principle of quantum meruit. The petitioner’s pension would however have to be calculated in terms of his salary payable at the time of his retirement, i.e. 31.03.2022. 34 . In view of the above reasons, this Court does not find any infirmity with the impugned statement made in paragraph 3 of the additional affidavit filed by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Higher (Technical) Education Department on 10.04.2024 and the cancellation of the OM dated 28.03.2022. 35. All the writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.