WA 261/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. UPADHYAY The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 6.5.2010 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP(C) 1149/2003. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that two advertisements wer e issued simultaneously some time in the year 1987. Unfortunately, neither adver tisement has been placed on record and therefore, it is not possible for us to c onfirm whether the submission of learned counsel for the appellant is correct or not. It may also be noted that even before the learned Single Judge the appella nt did not place those advertisements on record. However, from the record it app ears that both the advertisements were issued at different points of time. For the purposes of disposal of the present appeal, we proceed on the basis that what has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant is correct and tha t the two advertisements were issued by the respondents more or less contemporan eously. In respect of the first advertisement, the appellant was selected and joined as an Assistant Teacher in the under graduate cadre in Morley High School. This was by an appointment letter dated 12.9.88. In respect of the second advertisement, the appellant joined as an Assistant Teacher in the Government Girls HS & MP Sc hool at Silchar. This was as a result of the order dated 30.1.1992. It is on record that insofar as the second advertisement is concerned, the appel lant did not have the permission of her employer to apply or to take up the appo intment. After the appellant took up the second appointment, she asked for protection of her pay in respect of the first employment in Morley High School. This was rejec ted by the respondents on the ground that the second employment was not with the permission of the respondents. These facts lead us to understand that the two a dvertisements were issued at different points of time contrary to what has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellant. Be that as it may, in view of the reasons stated above, the appellant was not gr anted the pay protection. The appellant moved the Assam Administrative Tribunal by way of Case No.35ATA/2002. This case was rejected by the Tribunal by an orde r dated 27.11.2002. The Tribunal noted that the service in the earlier post of u nder graduate cadre was not a condition precedent for getting the subsequent po st. Additionally, the appellant had failed to explain why she had not declared t hat she was already employed elsewhere and had permission to take up the second employment. On the basis of the existing Rules, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the a ppellant was not entitled to pay protection and that the appellant had even fail ed to make out any prima facie case in her favour. The case filed by the appella nt was accordingly dismissed by the Tribunal. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant approached this Court by way of writ petition a nd the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by the order under chall enge in this appeal. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that both the posts to which the appellant was appointed and selected are of two different cadres and are regula ted by two different sets of procedures. There is no linkage of the service of t he appellant appointed in one post with that of the other post. The second appointment of the appellant was in fact a fresh appointment and was not a promotion or appointment within the meaning of FR 22. It was also held tha t the posts and cadres in both the appointments were completely distinct, separa te and could not be clubbed together for the purpose of availing the benefit of FR 22. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant is now before us in appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and have also gone through FR 22 . It is clear from a reading thereof that the appointment referred to under FR 2 2(1)(a)(1) has to be read ejusdem generis with promotion. Consequently, the cadr e for promotion must be the same or at least the avenues for promotion must be s imilar. The applicable recruitment or promotion procedures must necessarily be s imilar. But, as we have found in this case, and as has been held both by the Tri bunal as well as by the learned Single Judge, there is no linkage between one po st and other post. It is as if the appellant had applied for two different posts and was selected in respect of one post and subsequently selected in respect of another post and would like to have the benefits accruing in respect of the fir st post. This is certainly not the intention of FR 22. Under the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal or by the learned Single Judge. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.