inflexible propositi o n that, wherever the Rule provi d es for more than one channel of promotion, vacancies under the normal promotion quota must invariably be filled befo r e vacancies earmarked for an L DCE quota, irrespective of the actual vacancy position in the res p ective quotas. In N. Ravindran (supra) , the question before the Hon’ble Supreme Court arose in t h e context of two categories of p r omotees and the consequential fix a tion of their inter se seniority. The decision does not dispen s e with the requirement of esta b lishing the existence of a vacancy i n the relevant promotional quota b efore a direction for promotion can be issued. 10. The controlling consideration in the present ca s e is not the mere existence of a 75:15:10 distribution, but whether, on the basis of the applicable c a dre structure and the sanctioned strength, an actual vacancy wa s available against the 75% PQ q uota on the relevant date. In the present case, the respondents in i tially placed before us a chart sh o wing the sanctioned strength of C C TS at Level6 as 421 against the 75% Promotion/Selection quo t a, with 467 persons shown agai n st the said quota and, consequentl y , 46 persons in excess. In the subsequent affidavit dated 06. 0 4.2026, the respondents have f u rnished a more detailed cadre-wise calculation based upon the m e rger of the Ticket Checking Staff, Commercial
