JUDGMENT : Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. Petitioner projects that due to pendency of a writ petition, the respondents did not convene the meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) for promotion to the post of Principal (College Cadre) during his service tenure. Petitioner, who was a respondent in the said writ petition superannuated in the interregnum. The writ petition was dismissed after his retirement. The respondents thereafter convened the meeting of DPC. The DPC, though considered the name of the petitioner against the vacancy for the year 2019 but did not recommend his promotion he being a retiree. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has instituted this writ petition mainly praying for conferring upon him notional promotion to the post of Principal (College Cadre) from the year 2019 when the post became available and he was also eligible for promotion. 2. The Case 2(i) Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer (Music) College Cadre on 14.08.1993. He was designated as Senior Lecturer in August, 1999 and further promoted as Associate Professor in August, 2006. 2(ii) According to the petitioner, he was eligible for promotion as Principal (College Cadre) during the year 2018. Petitioner satisfied the eligibility criteria for promotion and was also in possession of Ph.D Degree in Music. His name was reflected at Sr. No.1 in the list of eligible candidates as per seniority. The DPC for promotion to the post of Principal (College Cadre) was not convened. 2(iii) Some incumbents possessing Ph.D Degrees but junior to the petitioner in the seniority list instituted Dr. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. versus State of H.P. & Ors., CWPOA No. 4373 of 2019, decided on 23.06.2022. Present petitioner was impleaded as respondent No.6 therein. In the said writ petition, the claim was that only Ph.D Degree holders and not M.Phil Degree holders should be considered for promotion as Principal (College Cadre), as per UGC guidelines. It is the projected case of the petitioner that because of pendency of the said writ petition, respondents did not convene the meeting of DPC, consequently, petitioner was deprived of his promotion despite being eligible. 2(iv) The writ petition was dismissed on 23.06.2022. The respondents, thereafter convened the meeting of DPC on 18.08.2023. The name of the petitioner, who had superannuated in the meanwhile on 31.03.2022 was also considered and it figured at Sr. No.1 of the panel prepared for the year 2019. 2(iv) The writ petition was dismissed on 23.06.2022. The respondents, thereafter convened the meeting of DPC on 18.08.2023. The name of the petitioner, who had superannuated in the meanwhile on 31.03.2022 was also considered and it figured at Sr. No.1 of the panel prepared for the year 2019. Petitioner being a retiree was however not actually promoted as Principal (College Cadre). 2(v) With the grievance that it was not petitioner’s fault that the meeting of DPC was not convened in time; That it was because of pendency of Dr. Sanjeev Kumar[CWPOA No. 4373 of 2019, decided on 23.06.2022], the respondents had not convened the meeting of DPC, the petitioner has instituted this petition praying that his superannuation during pendency of the writ petition cannot be held against him for not promoting him to the post of Principal (College Cadre); That in view of instructions issued by the State Personnel Department on 25.06.2013, petitioner was required to be conferred at least notional promotion w.e.f. year 2019, when he was fully eligible and post for his promotion was also available. The substantive reliefs prayed for by the petitioner read as under: (i) To quash the proceedings of the DPC dated 18.8.2023 qua the petitioner for not including his name in the selection panel dated 18.8.2023 without any rhyme and reason despite being fully eligible and qualified in all respects and reflected at Sr. No.1 in the list of eli- gible and found fit candidates against the vacancies for the year 2019 (Annexure P-2 at page 22) with fur- ther directions to the respondents to grant promotion on notional basis as Principal (College Cadre). (ii) In view of relief at (i) above, issue directions to the respondent No.1 to issue notification for notional promotion w.e.f. year 2019. 3 Heard learned Counsel for the parties & considered the case file. 4. Consideration In my considered view, in the given facts and circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed by him. This is for the following reasons:- 4(i) It will be appropriate to first refer to Government of West Bengal & Ors. vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 13187 of 2024, decided on 27.11.2024, Supreme Court of India. wherein it was held that employee whose promotion was not effectuated before his retirement would not be entitled to retrospective promotion and the notional benefits attached to the promotion. vs. Dr. Amal Satpathi & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 13187 of 2024, decided on 27.11.2024, Supreme Court of India. wherein it was held that employee whose promotion was not effectuated before his retirement would not be entitled to retrospective promotion and the notional benefits attached to the promotion. In the aforesaid case, learned Tribunal had acknowledged that respondent No.1 (therein) had been duly recommended for promotion before his superannuation, which was delayed due to procedural obstructions beyond his control. Therefore, while actual promotion was not acceded to, the learned Tribunal directed that respondent No.1 should be granted notional financial benefits of promotional post to ensure pensionary benefits commensurate with the promotional post. The order passed by learned Tribunal was assailed by appellant before Hon’ble High Court. The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the writ petition, concurring with the learned Tribunal that retrospective promotion was impermissible but the notional financial benefits were justifiably given, since, no fault could be attributed to respondent No.1. The State assailed the aforesaid decision before the Hon’ble Apex Court. Appellant-State relied upon several pronouncements, including Union of India vs. N.C. Murali, (2017) 13 SCC 575 , to contend that without a specific rule entitling employees to promotion from the date of vacancy, right to promotion arises only when it is actually effected. Whereas, submission on behalf of respondent No.1 was that he could have been promoted to post of Chief Scientific Officer years earlier; had the Department submitted a timely proposal to fill up the vacancy, had the Department officials acted with promptitude and diligence, respondent No.1 would have in all probability received the promotion long before his retirement. Hon’ble Apex Court, inter alia, noticed Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules and reiterated well- settled Principal that promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted, rather than from the date a vacancy arises or the post is created. There is only right to be considered for promotion, there is no fundamental right to the promotion itself. No retrospective promotion can be granted nor can any seniority be given on retrospective basis from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre. Relevant paras from the decision are as under:- “19. It is a well settled Principal that promotion becomes effective from the date it is granted, rather than from the date a vacancy arises or the post is created. Relevant paras from the decision are as under:- “19. It is a well settled Principal 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 as not only a statutory right but also a fundamental right, there is no fundamental right to the promotion itself. In this regard, we may gainfully refer to a recent decision of this Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board and Others v. Dharamdeo Das, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1768, wherein it was observed as follows: “18. It is no longer res integra that a promotion is effective from the date it is granted and not from the date when a vacancy occurs on the subject post or when the post itself is created. No doubt, a right to be considered for promotion has been treated by courts not just as a statutory right but as a fundamental right, at the same time, there is no fundamental right to promotion itself. In this context, we may profitably cite a recent decision in Ajay Kumar Shukla v. Arvind Rai, (2022) 12 SCC 579 where, citing earlier precedents in Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty, (1991) 2 SCC 295 and Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, (1999) 7 SCC 209 , a three-Judge Bench observed thus: 41. This Court, time and again, has laid emphasis on right to be considered for promotion to be a fundamental right, as was held by K. Ramaswamy, J., in Director, Lift Irrigation Corpn. Ltd. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty in para 4 of the report which is reproduced below: ‘4……. There is no fundamental right to promotion, but an employee has only right to be considered for promotion, when it arises, in accordance with relevant rules. From this perspective in our view the conclusion of the High Court that the gradation list prepared by the corporation is in violation of the right of respondent writ petitioner to equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution, and the respondent-writ petitioner was unjustly denied of the same is obviously unjustified.’ 42. From this perspective in our view the conclusion of the High Court that the gradation list prepared by the corporation is in violation of the right of respondent writ petitioner to equality enshrined under Article 14 read with Article 16 of the Constitution, and the respondent-writ petitioner was unjustly denied of the same is obviously unjustified.’ 42. A Constitution Bench in Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, laying emphasis on Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India held that if a person who satisfies the eligibility and the criteria for promotion but still is not considered for promotion, then there will be clear violation of his/her’s fundamental right. Jagannadha Rao, J. speaking for himself and Anand, C.J., Venkataswami, Pattanaik, Kurdukar, JJ., observed the same as follows in paras 22 and 27: ‘Articles 14 and 16(1): is right to be considered for promotion a fundamental right 22. Article 14 and Article 16(1) are closely connected. They deal with individual rights of the person. Article 14 demands that the ‘State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws’. Article 16(1) issues a positive command that: ‘there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State’. It has been held repeatedly by this Court that clause (1) of Article 16 is a facet of Article 14 and that it takes its roots from Article 14. The said clause particularises the generality in Article 14 and identifies, in a constitutional sense “equality of opportunity” in matters of employment and appointment to any office under the State. The word “employment” being wider, there is no dispute that it takes within its fold, the aspect of promotions to posts above the stage of initial level of recruitment. Article 16 (1) provides to every employee otherwise eligible for promotion or who comes within the zone of consideration, a fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion. Equal opportunity here means the right to be “considered” for promotion. If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion, which is his personal right. “Promotion” based on equal opportunity and seniority attached to such promotion are facets of fundamental right under Article 16(1). If a person satisfies the eligibility and zone criteria but is not considered for promotion, then there will be a clear infraction of his fundamental right to be “considered” for promotion, which is his personal right. “Promotion” based on equal opportunity and seniority attached to such promotion are facets of fundamental right under Article 16(1). … … … 27. In our opinion, the above view expressed in Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., (1997) 5 SCC 201 , and followed in Jagdish Lal [Jagdish Lal v. State of Haryana, (1997) 6 SCC 538 , and other cases, if it is intended to lay down that the right guaranteed to employees for being “considered” for promotion according to relevant rules of recruitment by promotion (i.e. whether on the basis of seniority or merit) is only a statutory right and not a fundamental right, we cannot accept the proposition. We have already stated earlier that the right to equal opportunity in the matter of promotion in the sense of a right to be “considered” for promotion is indeed a fundamental right guaranteed under Article 16(1) and this has never been doubted in any other case before Ashok Kumar Gupta [Ashok Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.], right from 1950.’ ……………………………………… “20. In State of Bihar v. Akhouri Sachindra Nath, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 334, it was held that retrospective seniority cannot be given to an employee from a date when he was not even borne in the cadre, nor can seniority be given with retrospective effect as that might adversely affect others. The same view was reiterated in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 272, where it was held that when a quota is provided for, then the seniority of the employee would be reckoned from the date when the vacancy arises in the quota and not from any anterior date of promotion or subsequent date of confirmation. The said view was restated in Uttaranchal Forest Rangers’ Assn. (Direct Recruit) v. State of U.P., (2006) 10 SCC 346 , in the following words: ‘37. The said view was restated in Uttaranchal Forest Rangers’ Assn. (Direct Recruit) v. State of U.P., (2006) 10 SCC 346 , in the following words: ‘37. We are also of the view 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, as decided by this Court in Keshav Chandra Joshi v. Union of India held that when promotion is outside the quota, seniority would be reckoned from the date of the vacancy within the quota rendering the previous service fortuitous. The previous promotion would be regular only from the date of the vacancy within the quota and seniority shall be counted from that date and not from the date of his earlier promotion or subsequent confirmation. In order to do justice to the promotes, it would not be proper to do injustice to the direct recruits…… 38. This Court has consistently held that no retrospective promotion can be granted nor can any seniority be given on retrospective basis from a date when an employee has not even been borne in the cadre particularly when this would adversely affect the direct recruits who have been appointed validity in the meantime.” (emphasis supplied)” 20. In the instant case, it is evident that while respondent No. 1 was recommended for promotion before his retirement, he could not assume the duties of the Chief Scientific Officer. Rule 54(1)(a) of the West Bengal Service Rules, clearly stipulates that an employee must assume the responsibilities of ahigher post to draw the corresponding pay, thus, preventing posthumous or retrospective promotions in the absence of an enabling provision. 21. While we recognize respondent No.1’s right to be considered for promotion, which is a fundamental right under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India, he does not hold an absolute right to the promotion itself. The legal precedents discussed above establish 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. Considering that respondent No. 1 superannuated before his promotion was effectuated, he is not entitled to retrospective financial benefits associated to the promotional post of Chief Scientific Officer, as he did not serve in that capacity. 22. Considering that respondent No. 1 superannuated before his promotion was effectuated, he is not entitled to retrospective financial benefits associated to the promotional post of Chief Scientific Officer, as he did not serve in that capacity. 22. As a result of the above discussion, the judgment dated 1st February, 2023 passed by the High Court of Calcutta and the judgment dated 26th June, 2019 passed by the Tribunal are unsustainable in the eyes of law and are hereby reversed and set aside.” 4(ii) Bihar State Electricity Board4 held that ‘a clear distinction has been drawn between the stage of considering an employee for being promoted to taking the next step of recognizing the said right as a vested right for promotion. That is where the line has to be drawn. Stated differently, a right to be considered for promotion being a facet of the right to equal opportunity in employment and appointment, would have to be treated as a fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution of India but such a right cannot translate into a vested right of the employee for being necessarily promoted to the promotional post, unless the rules expressly provide for such a situation. Promotion to a post…… should only be granted from the date of promotion and not from the date on which a vacancy may have arisen. In the given facts of that case, it was held that merely on completion of duration of the period required for promotion an employee would not automatically be entitled for promotion to the next higher post. No employee can lay a claim for being promoted to the next higher post merely on completing the minimum qualifying service. Such an interpretation would be fallacious and virtually result in nullifying the settled law of a right inhering in an employee for being considered for promotion being a fundamental right. By no stretch of imagination can a right for being appointed to the promotional post be treated as a vested right’. 4(iii) To the similar effect is State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. vs. Amar Dogra, LPA No. 631 of 2011, decided on 05.06.2014., wherein petitioner had claimed that the Department did not hold DPC in time despite the availability of eligible candidates including the petitioner and as such he was deprived of his right to be considered for promotion to the post in question. vs. Amar Dogra, LPA No. 631 of 2011, decided on 05.06.2014., wherein petitioner had claimed that the Department did not hold DPC in time despite the availability of eligible candidates including the petitioner and as such he was deprived of his right to be considered for promotion to the post in question. The issue before the Hon’ble Division Bench was whether merely on account of non-holding of DPC meeting within the time schedule would automatically give the petitioner a right to claim promotion with retrospective effect. After tracing several authoritative pronouncements in the timeline, it was held that petitioner had not attributed any malafide against the employer. In absence of malafide, no illegality can be said to be committed by the employer in convening the DPC meeting at a later stage. Similar view was reiterated in Bishambar Singh Vs. The Registrar, CSKHKV & another, CWPOA No. 6094 of 2020, decided on 14.03.2024 as under: - “9. At the outset, it needs to be observed that demand for appointment to higher post with retrospective effect can be deemed to be genuine only in case of arbitrary or mala fide postponement of DPC meeting, which is not the factual matrix obtaining in the instant case. 10. Equally settled is the proposition that the normal rule of law is that nobody can be promoted from a retrospective effect except when there exist facts, which necessitate so or there is a rule, which permits so. 11. In Union of India vs. K.K.Vadera & Ors. 1989 Supp (2) SCC 625, it was observed in para 5 as under:- “5……We do not know of any law or any rule under which a promotion is to be effective from the date of creation of the promotional post. After a post falls vacant for any reasonwhatsoever, a promotion to that post should be from the date the promotion is granted and not from the date on which such post falls vacant. In the same way when additional posts are created, promotions to those posts can be granted only after the Assessment Board has met and made its recommendations for promotions being granted. If on the contrary, promotions are directed to become effective from the date of the creation of additional posts, then it would have the effect of giving promotions even before the Assessment Board has met and assessed the suitability of the candidates for promotion….” 12. If on the contrary, promotions are directed to become effective from the date of the creation of additional posts, then it would have the effect of giving promotions even before the Assessment Board has met and assessed the suitability of the candidates for promotion….” 12. Following the aforesaid judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Baij Nath Sharma vs. Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur & Anr. 1998 (7) SCC 44 , held that a member of the Rajasthan Judicial Service could not be promoted from the date when the vacancy accrued in the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service against which vacancy he was ultimately promoted. 13. There is yet another principle that by now well settled and that is if due to administrative reasons, DPC cannot be held in a year, then the person cannot claim retrospective promotion in the absence of mala fides since mala fides taints every act requiring a person wronged to be placed in the position but for the malafide or tainted exercise of power. 14. The mere existence of vacancy per se will not create right in favour of an employee for retrospective promotion when vacancies in promotional posts are specifically provided under rules, which also mandate clearance through selection process. 15 In taking this view, we are duly supported not only by the judgments in K.K. Vadera and Baij Nath Sharma (supra), but also a fairly recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and another versus Manpreet Singh Poonam and others, (2022) 6 Supreme Court Cases 105, wherein it was observed as under:- “18. A mere existence of vacancy per se will not create a right in favour of an employee for retrospective promotion when the vacancies in the promotional post is specifically prescribed under the rules, which also mandate the clearance through a selection process. It is also to be borne in mind that when we deal with a case of promotion, there can never be a parity between two separate sets of rules. In other words, a right to promotion and subsequent benefits and seniority would arise only with respect to the rules governing the said promotion, and not a different set of rules which might apply to a promoted post facilitating further promotion which is governed by a different set of rules. 19. In other words, a right to promotion and subsequent benefits and seniority would arise only with respect to the rules governing the said promotion, and not a different set of rules which might apply to a promoted post facilitating further promotion which is governed by a different set of rules. 19. In the present case, the authority acting within the rules has rightly granted promotion after clearance of DPC on 17.04.2012 with effect from 01.07.2011, when the actual vacancies arose, which in any case is a benefit granted to the Respondent in Civil Appeal No.518 of 2017. In our view, this exercise of power by the authority of granting retrospective promotion with effect from the date on which actual vacancies arose is based on objective considerations and a valid classification. 20. This Court in the case of Union of India v. KK Vadhera and Ors., 1989 Supp (2) SCC 625 has clearly laid down that the promotion to a post should only be granted from the date of promotion and not from the date on which vacancy has arisen, and has observed that:- “5….We do not know of any law or any rule under which a promotion is to be effective from the date of creation of the promotional post After a post falls vacant for any reason whatsoever, a promotion to that post should be from the date the promotion is granted and not from the date on which such post falls vacant. In the same way when additional posts are created, promotions to those posts can be granted only after the Assessment Board has met and made its recommendations for promotions being granted. If on the contrary, promotions are directed to become effective from the date of the creation of additional posts, then it would have the effect of giving promotions even before the Assessment Board has met and assessed the suitability of the candidates for promotion. In the circumstances, it is difficult to sustain the judgment of the Tribunal.” In Chief Director, Highways Department, Government of Tamil Nadu and another Vs. Er. C. Murugesan, (2022) 19 SCC 385 junior of the writ petitioner therein was promoted after respondent’s superannuation. Hon’ble Apex Court held that merely for the promotion of junior after petitioner’s superannuation, the petitioner could not claim any right to seek promotion. Er. C. Murugesan, (2022) 19 SCC 385 junior of the writ petitioner therein was promoted after respondent’s superannuation. Hon’ble Apex Court held that merely for the promotion of junior after petitioner’s superannuation, the petitioner could not claim any right to seek promotion. 4(iv) The ratio of above decisions is applicable to the facts of the instant case as well. 4(iv)(a) Admittedly no interim directions had been issued in Dr. Sanjeev Kumar (supra) for restraining the respondents from convening the meeting of DPC for effecting promotions to the post of Principal (College Cadre). Even in the order passed on 30.05.2022 in the said writ petition which is highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, there was no direction to the respondents for not convening the meeting of DPC. The said order (Annexure P-5) reads as under:- “Even though, UGC has filed its counter affidavit, wherein it has been specifically stated that the requirement of Ph.D is mandatory for appointment to the post of Principal (College Cadre). However, it is not clarified as to whether such requirement is only for direct recruits or even applicable in the case of the promotees. Let specific instructions in this regard be obtained before the next date of hearing. List for consideration on 02.06.2022. In the meanwhile, the respondent-State shall not make any promotion on the basis of relaxed qualification.” A reading of the above order rather shows that only direction issued to the respondents was not to make promotions on the basis of relaxed qualification, or in other words, the eligibility criteria as laid down in the applicable Recruitment & Promotion Rules was ordered to be followed while making promotions to the post of Principal (College Cadre). Respondents had not been restrained from making promotions, but had only been directed to do so as per applicable R&P Rules. Therefore, the factual assertion of the petitioner that respondents did not convene the meeting of the DPC on account of the orders passed in Dr. Sanjeev Kumar (supra), is not correct. 4(iv)(b) Petitioner was respondent No.6 in the said writ petition. He was expected to be aware of all the orders passed in the said writ petition. He could have easily taken recourse to remedies as may be available to him in law for getting the meeting of DPC convened. Sanjeev Kumar (supra), is not correct. 4(iv)(b) Petitioner was respondent No.6 in the said writ petition. He was expected to be aware of all the orders passed in the said writ petition. He could have easily taken recourse to remedies as may be available to him in law for getting the meeting of DPC convened. It is not his case that he had ever even represented to the respondents for convening the meeting of DPC. Furthermore, the case record shows that on 29.03.2022, petitioner had moved an application bearing CMP (T) No. 203 of 2022 seeking directions to the respondents to convene the meeting of DPC. It appears that said application was not pressed at any stage during hearing of the petition. It was for the petitioner to plead his application. The said application stood disposed of in terms of paragraph-40 of Dr. Sanjeev Kumar (supra). The petitioner admittedly has not taken recourse to any legal remedy regarding disposal of CMP (T) No. 203 of 2022. Having not availed the appropriate remedy for convening of DPC meeting, at the relevant time and seeking to raise the same issue now in the instant petition may not be an appropriate legal course. Be that, as it may, the fact remains that it was always open for the petitioner to have taken recourse to administrative/legal options available to him, against respondents’ not convening the meeting of DPC at the appropriate time there being no interim order in Dr. Sanjeev Kumar (supra), however the petitioners did not exercise their options at the appropriate stages. 4(iv)(c) Reliance placed for the petitioner upon office instructions dated 25.06.2013 issued by the Personnel Department is also misplaced. The portion thereof relevant to the context as pressed into service by the learned counsel reads as under:- “It may be pointed out that there is no specific bar in the related instructions of this Department for consideration of retired employees, while preparing year wise panel(s), who were in the zone of consideration for the relevant year(s). The portion thereof relevant to the context as pressed into service by the learned counsel reads as under:- “It may be pointed out that there is no specific bar in the related instructions of this Department for consideration of retired employees, while preparing year wise panel(s), who were in the zone of consideration for the relevant year(s). It would not be in order, if eligible employees, who were within the zone of consideration for the relevant year(s) but are not actually in service when the DPC is being held, are not considered while preparing year wise zone of consideration/panel and consequently, their juniors are considered (in their place) who would not have been in the zone of consideration, if the DPC(s) has been held in time. The matter has been considered carefully and it has been considered imperative to identify the correct zone of consideration for relevant year(s) and names of the retired officials may be included in the panel(s) if such official falls within the zone of consideration against the vacancies of the relevant year(s). Such retired officials would, however, have no right for actual promotion. The DPC(s), may, if need be, prepare extended panel(s) for the year in which a retiree is recommended for promotion.” Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per above office instructions petitioner though has no right for actual promotion from retrospective date, nonetheless notional promotion ought to be conferred upon him from due date especially when meeting of DPC was not convened during his service tenure & was actually convened after his superannuation. Taking note of the submissions made for the petitioner, vide order dated 04.08.2025, respondents were directed to clarify the position. Pursuant thereto the instructions dated 23.08.2025 were placed on record. Gist of these instructions is that the office instructions dated 25.06.2013 do not permit conferring notional promotion upon a retiree from a back date who had never held the higher post during his service tenure; The names of the retirees are considered by the DPC in meetings convened for promotions, while preparing year-wise panel(s) of those who get in zone of consideration in the relevant year(s). Names of retired employees are required to be considered, if they were eligible at the relevant time & were falling in the zone of consideration as otherwise there would be unnecessary & uncalled for expansions of the zone of consideration and manipulations to delay the DPCs in order to expand zone of consideration. Therefore, panel is to be drawn by the DPC recommending candidates of previous years including retired candidates, falling in zone of consideration as if DPC had been convened in time. However, such retired official would have no right for actual promotion. Joining the promotional post is mandatory to avail the benefits and responsibilities associated with the promotion. Fundamental requirement is the ability to immediately assume the duties of higher post. Retired employees cannot fulfill this requirement. The office instructions dated 25.06.2013 do not, therefore, envisage grant of notional promotion to the retirees. Notional promotions are primarily granted for rectifying some errors, present is not such case. Admittedly, there is no rule enabling promotion from the date of drawing the panel of promotion or from the date the vacancy occurred. 4(iv)(d) It is also worth noticing that the petitioner has not even alleged any discrimination. It is not his case that any of his juniors had been promoted to the post of Principal (College Cadre) prior to his superannuation. Though attention was invited to a Notification dated 22.08.2023 (Annexure P-6) by the learned counsel for the petitioner pointing out names of some incumbents whose officiating service as Principal (College Cadre) had been regularized on notional basis from back dates. Yet to a query of the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly admitted that all the incumbents in Annexure P-6 had actually been holding the post of Principal (College Cadre) on officiating basis from the dates from which their services were retrospectively regularized vide Notification dated 22.08.2023. 5. In view of the foregoing, I do not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner for his retrospective notional promotion to the post of Principal (College Cadre) w.e.f. the year 2019, post his superannuation on 31.08.2022. Petitioner’s claim is against law and not permissible in the given facts. The writ petition fails, same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.