Judgment :- Abdul Gafoor, J. These writ appeals are by the petitioner in O.P.No.13185/03. He was also the respondent No.4 in W.P.C. No.36966/03. Both these petitions were heard and disposed of together by the learned Single Judge on 08.08.2005 along with other cases. Writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed and the writ petition filed by his opponents wherein he was respondent No.4 was allowed. Therefore, these writ appeals by the petitioner in O.P.No.13185/03. 2. The issue arisen for consideration was who among the appellant and respondent No.1 was eligible for being promoted as Assistant professor against the vacancy occurred on 24.09.01. 3. Admittedly, they were not qualified as on the said date for being promoted. Going by note to Rule 28 (i) A of the General Rules in K.S. & S.S.R. subject to suitability, the person who gets first qualified is entitled to be considered. These aspects are not in dispute. 4. Subsequently, against the vacancies that had arisen in the year, 2002, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) had considered both of them along with others and both of them found place in a select list of Assistant professors to be promoted as Associate Professors. So both of them were suitable to the post is also a conceded fact. 5. Therefore, the point to be considered is who among them was eligible for promotion to the vacancy occurred on 24.09.01. 6. The eligibility has to be considered as already mentioned above going by Rule 28 (i) A reckoning who had become qualified first. Because, none was qualified when the vacancy arose. Therefore, what we have to venture is to find who among the appellant and respondent No.1 became qualified first for promotion to the post of Associate Professor, Psychiatry. 7. Qualification to the said post is prescribed in G.O.(P) 455/76/Health dated 22.12.1976 Ext.P4 marked in O.P.No.13185/03. Apart from Post Graduate Degree in Psychiatry one shall also have experience “As Reader/Asst. Prof. in Psychiatry for 5 years in a medical college after requisite post-graduate qualification”. Both of them did possess Post Graduate qualification from their initial entry in service is also not disputed. Therefore, acquisition of the said five years’ experience as Reader/Assistant professor is the point to be determined. 8. Prof. in Psychiatry for 5 years in a medical college after requisite post-graduate qualification”. Both of them did possess Post Graduate qualification from their initial entry in service is also not disputed. Therefore, acquisition of the said five years’ experience as Reader/Assistant professor is the point to be determined. 8. Para 4 of the main part of Ext.P4 reads as under:- The nature and period of teaching experience that will be taken into account in calculating the total period of teaching experience required for each post will be as laid down in G.O.(MS) 594/66/Health dated 01.08.1966 as amended by G.O.(Ms)125/76/Health dated 23.3.1976. 9. While both of them were working as lecturers, they were ordered to be promoted on temporary basis as Assistant Professors as per Ext.P1 dated 26.12.1996 in O.P.No.13185/03. Pursuant to Ext.P1, the appellant joined duty as Assistant Professor on 28.12.1996 and the first respondent joined duty on 30.12.1996. Ext.P1 was later cancelled presumably based on the judgment in Writ Appeal Nos.1520, 1521 and 1528 of 1996, as per Ext.P2 dated 15.09.1997. According to the appellant, they had worked as Assistant Professor until that date. Later, they were ordered to be promoted again on provisional basis as per Ext.P3 dated 13.05.1997 and both of them joined duty in that post as is seen from Annexure-R1 on 14.05.1997 and continued so. Taking these two spells of experience, it is contended by the appellant that the appellant acquired the prescribed experience of five years, two days earlier than the first respondent. It is further submitted by the appellant that during this period, the first respondent had been on commuted leave for 12 days and therefore, that leave period shall also be excluded from the experience, because going by para 4 extracted above and the provisions contained in the Government Orders read therein periods of earned leave and maternity leave have to be excluded from experience. Therefore, the first respondent will have a dearth of 14 days of experience altogether as compared to the appellant. Thus, the appellant had acquired the qualification earlier. It is contended that this aspect had been lost sight of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the first respondent will have a dearth of 14 days of experience altogether as compared to the appellant. Thus, the appellant had acquired the qualification earlier. It is contended that this aspect had been lost sight of the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge courted out the appellant dismissing O.P.13185/03 on the ground that he did not have any locus standi to object to the ranking in Ext.P7 select list as he found a place therein and had not been superseded. A representation would have been filed against the finding of the DPC as per Rule 28(b)8 only by a person superseded and finding no place in the select list, according to the learned Single Judge. This finding is not justified to court out the appellant. When this experience is taken note of, necessarily the finding arrived at by the review DPC in Annexure-R1 that he became qualified first as compared to the first respondent is justified and the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with Annexure-R1 (Ext.P8 in W.P.C.No.36966/03). Therefore, the judgment is not sustainable, it is submitted. 10. On the other hand, it is submitted by the first respondent that both of them were considered by the DPC for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor, the feeder category to the post of Associate Professor, as per Ext.P1 in W.P.C.No.36966/03 respectively with effect from 04.10.1996 and 26.12.1996. Going by the definition of duty as contained in Rule 2 (6)F the period of retrospective promotion shall also be treated as duty. When this period is treated as duty, necessarily it shall be counted against experience. The first respondent, thus acquired experience from 04.10.1996 whereas the appellant acquired experience only from 26.12.1996. So the first respondent had acquired the required experience first as compared to the appellant. It is further submitted that when the review DPC considered the issue in Ext.P8 in W.P.C.No.36966/03, the commuted leave availed of by the first respondent had already been converted into earned leave. The earned leave period cannot be excluded from experience. Therefore, there is nothing illegal in the judgment impugned. It is further contended that Ext.P1 provisional promotion ordered as Assistant Professor had been cancelled as per Ext.P2. It was not a reversion from the provisionally promoted post; but cancellation of promotion. The earned leave period cannot be excluded from experience. Therefore, there is nothing illegal in the judgment impugned. It is further contended that Ext.P1 provisional promotion ordered as Assistant Professor had been cancelled as per Ext.P2. It was not a reversion from the provisionally promoted post; but cancellation of promotion. In such circumstances, the period spent during such cancelled promotion cannot be counted towards experience. When, provisional promotion ordered as per Ext.P1 had been cancelled, the entire promotion is erased out. That was why, while preparing Ext.P7 select list, the DPC did not find significance in the said period. No specific reason had been assigned by the review DPC as to how they had found significance for the said period. Therefore, it is submitted that such period of provisional promotion which has been cancelled could not have been reckoned towards experience. In such circumstances, there arises no question of the appellant getting qualified earlier than the first respondent, the Counsel submits. 11. Both of them did have the Post Graduate Degree qualification right from the commencement of their service. This is the admitted position. The provisional promotion ordered as per Ext.P1 had been cancelled as per Ext.P2. This is also not disputed. It is revealed from R1(a) in W.P.C.No.36966/03 that the DPC, which met to prepare Ext.P7 select list in which the appellant is ranked below the first respondent, had considered the fate of the cancelled provisional promotion and had come to a finding that because of such cancellation the period of such provisional promotion did have no significance. Necessarily, that period could not have been counted towards experience in the category of Assistant Professor to be considered for promotion as Associate Professor. Ext.P2 categorically cancels Ext.P1 Therefore, Ext.P1 did not exist and nothing emanates out of it. It is erased out of the records. Necessarily, the consideration by the earlier DPC which prepared Ext.P7 was justified to arrive at a conclusion that, it did not have any significance. It is also discernable from the explanatory note in Annexure-1 that based on Ext.P3 promotion both had joined duty as Assistant Professor on 14.05.1997. That is the date of commencement of the relevant experience in the category of Assistant Professor for both. When thus both commenced on the same day, they completed the relevant requisite period of five years of experience also on the same day. That is the date of commencement of the relevant experience in the category of Assistant Professor for both. When thus both commenced on the same day, they completed the relevant requisite period of five years of experience also on the same day. The alleged commuted leave or the earned leave which cannot be counted for experience had been availed by the first respondent before 14.05.1997. Therefore, that is not a relevant matter for consideration in the issue on hand. There is no case for the appellant that after 14.05.1997 the first respondent had proceeded on leave. Therefore, both the appellant as well as the first respondent commenced service as Assistant Professor on the same day namely 14.05.1997 and completed five years of experience to be considered for promotion as Assistant Professor on 13.05.2002. In between them admittedly the first respondent is senior. Both of them are found suitable by the DPC in Ext.P7 as well as in Annexure-A1. When both are thus found suitable for a vacancy necessarily going by Rule 28 (b) (1) (7) senior incumbent shall be placed above the junior incumbent. When thus first respondent is senior to the appellant, first respondent is entitled to be placed above the appellant. As there is only one vacancy as on 24.09.01 and both of them got qualified on the same date necessarily, the senior shall be promoted to that vacancy. 12. That vacancy has been assigned to the appellant, as per Ext.P8 in W.P.C.No.36966/03 counting the period that he had served as Assistant Professor from 28.12.1996 to 13.05.1997 during the period of provisional promotion which has been cancelled. As mentioned above, the DPC which met for preparation of Ext.P7 had found that because of the cancellation of the promotion as per Ext.P2 it had no significance. Explanatory note to Annexure-1 did not reveal how it had gained significance to review the decision in Ext.P7. Merely because a note had been circulated to the DPC, the DPC is not bound to supersede an incumbent. The DPC has to find out the reason for the review of the decision taken in Ext.P7 based on the view that provisional promotion which cancelled did not have any significance. Therefore, the review made in Annexure-R1 (a) losses its basis. 13. The view taken by the learned Single Judge can be thus supported on the basis of aforesaid reasons. Ext.P7 will thus revive. Therefore, the review made in Annexure-R1 (a) losses its basis. 13. The view taken by the learned Single Judge can be thus supported on the basis of aforesaid reasons. Ext.P7 will thus revive. Therefore, we see nothing for interference in these writ appeals. 14. Writ appeals, therefore, fail and are dismissed accordingly.