list was prepared for promotion to 131 nos.of posts, of which 60% posts were reserved for C.T. qualified candidates and 40% was for B.Ed. qualified candidates. Therefore, total no.of posts vacant for B.Ed. qualified candidates were 52 out of 131. Further, out of 52 nos. of posts for B.Ed. qualified teachers, 12 posts are reserved for ST candidates and 8 nos. of posts were reserved for SC candidates and, as such, 32 posts were meant for general category teachers. The petitioner comes under the general category. Promotion order as per decision of the selection committee was passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Banki, vide order dated 30.11.2017, in which as per gradation list for B.Ed. qualified teachers promotion was made up to sl.no.34 and the petitioner’s name found place at sl.no.35 and, as such, the gradation list was valid for one year, as per the decision of the selection committee and, thereby, the petitioner could not have been adjusted, as there was no vacancy available in the general category. Even though a person was retired and vacancy was caused, the benefit cannot be automatically extended to the petitioner granting her promotion. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner to extend the benefit of promotion because of vacancy caused due to retirement of a person, cannot sustain in the eye of law. As such, relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted.
