Per contra, Sri Ankit Saran, learned counsel appearing for the Committee of Management of the Institution has submitted that there is no provision of notional promotion in the Intermediate Education Act. It is only after the direction of this Court for being considered the promotion was granted by the Joint Director of Education, Bareilly Division, Bareilly vide order dated 11.1.2012 and that earlier the petitioner had approached this Court in the year 2008 regarding claim for promotion, the direction was issued in the year 2011 and therefore, no such notional promotion from the back date can be granted to the petitioner particularly in absence of any provision for the same. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondent has also advanced his argument to the same effect. From perusal of the judgement dated 16.11.2011, which is quoted above, it is clear that in the aforesaid petition in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the Committee of Management, it was admitted that the adverse entry against the petitioners including the present petitioner were expunged vide resolution dated 20.3.2005 and vide resolution no. 6 dated 21.7.2007 promotion was granted to the petitioner was asked to withdraw the writ petition no. 3817 of 2006, which is accordingly withdrawn on 16.11.2007. The aforesaid judgement has clearly noticed this fact that the adverse entry has already been expunged by the Committee of Management and the same were never communicated to the petitioner and therefore, the promotion of the petitioner could not have been rejected. In this light, it appears that the stand taken by the respondents that the petitioner was not teaching class of High School, also did not find favour by this Court, therefore, the direction was issued to re-consider the claim of the petitioner for promotion on the post of Lecturer (English) in accordance with law. Consequently, the order dated 11.1.2012 passed by the Joint Director of Education, Bareilly granting promotion from the date of joining, was passed.. A perusal of the order dated 20.9.2012, passed in writ petition no. 48437 of 2012, it is very much clear that prima facie being satisfied with the claim of the petitioner that his claim for notional promotion with back date be considered, direction was issued. The District Inspector of Schools, who is an authority subordinate to the Joint Director of Education, who had passed the order dated 11.1.2012, has passed the order that in view of the order of the Joint Director of Education, the date of joining shall be taken to be the date of promotion and that there is no provision of notional promotion, hence the claim of the petitioner was rejected. From the facts as reflected from the order dated 16.11.2011 as quoted above, it is clear that the Committee of Management had also passed the resolution no. 6 dated 21.7.2007 granting promotion to the petitioner. Since the Court by itself has not granted relief of notional promotion from the date when the post fell vacant and only directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for granting notional promotion and the record also reflects that the petitioner is litigating since long but no positive direction was given by this court accepting claim of the petitioner and only the authorities were directed to consider the claim of the promotion, more so, when the petitioner has admittedly already retired from service and Dr. H.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that the petitioner will not claim any arrears of salary for the period of notional promotion and only the service of the petitioner may be counted for the purpose of revising his pensionary benefits and therefore, in all fitness of the case, it would be appropriate that the petitioner be accorded notional promotion from the date of passing of the resolution no. 6 dated 21.7.2007 by the Committee of Management as admitted in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit filed by the Committee of Management in Writ Petition No. 27919 of 2008 as already quoted above.