training of the visually handicapped students in addition to his graduate degree. On the other hand, the respondent no 5 possessed the necessary educational qualification as B.A. With additional diploma to train the visually handicapped students. In this peculiar fact situation, in our view the Petitioner and the respondent no. 5 were not similarly circumstanced for both of them to be considered on par for prospects of promotion in service as trained graduate teacher. Petitioner was not entitled to claim the right of promotion over and above the claim of the respondent no.5. Even otherwise the petitioner can not claim promotion merely on the ground that he belonged to the scheduled caste or tribe in the facts of the case. The Petitioner had no legal right to claim seniority and promotion over the claim of the respondent no. 5-Shri Tambe in the facts and circumstances of the case. Even assuming that the Petitioner had right to be considered for promotion the impugned order of promoting the respondent no.5 was absolutely faultless, free from any arbitrariness. It is well reasoned, just and proper under the circumstances. Untrained teacher cannot be considered as senior to the trained teacher. They belonged to different categories. The impugned decision was taken by the Dy. Director, Social Welfare Division, (handicapped Division), Pune after grant of opportunity of hearing to the rival claimants and having observed the principles of natural justice.
