The brief facts be noticed as under:-- 1. Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Government Medical College, Jammu, vide Government Order No. 813 dt. 10th of Nov. 2000. Respondent No.4 was also appointed as Lecturer in the Discipline of Pedodonitia in Government Dental College, Srinagar, vide Government Order No. 558-HME/95 dated 4th of Dec 95. The said respondent filed a writ petition bearing SWP No. 1518/95, seeking a direction to respondent-State therein to allow him to join his duties at Jammu, as he is unable to join at Srinagar due to militancy. Direction was also sought not to cancel the appointment of said respondent. This court vide interim order directed the respondent State therein to not to cancel the appointment of respondent No.4 (petitioner in the above writ petition). The said order was later on modified and the State was directed to allow the petitioner to join against an appropriate post in Jammu province. Respondent No.4 thereafter was adjusted as Lecturer in Dentistry, Department of Medical College, Jammu, against the available vacancy of B-Grade Dental Specialist vide Government Order No.24-HME of 1997 dt. 7th of Jan. 97. Vide Government Order No.469-HME of 1998 dt. 3rd of July 98, respondent No.4 was adjusted as Lecturer in Dentistry Discipline in Government Medical College, Jammu. Further in terms of Government Order No. 868-HME of 2003 dt. 4th of Aug 03, the respondent No.4 was promoted as Incharge Assistant Professor in his own pay and grade. The State Government vide Order dt. 18th of Oct 04, issued a tentative seniority list in which respondent No.4 has been shown senior to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition is seeking a writ of certiorari quashing Order dt. 7th of Jan. 97 whereby respondent No.4 was adjusted as B-Grade Specialist in Government Medical College, Jammu. Further writ of certiorari is also seeking quashment of Government Order No.868-HME of 2003 dt. 4th of Aug 03 whereby the respondent No.4 was promoted as Incharge Assistant Professor and order dt. 18th of Oct 04 whereby the respondent No.4 has been shown senior to the petitioner. 3. On notice, respondents have filed counter. Respondents 1 to 3 in their counter affidavit have taken on objection that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches. It is stated that respondent No.4 was adjusted in Dentistry discipline in Government Medical College, Jammu vide order No. 469-HME of 1998 dt. 3. On notice, respondents have filed counter. Respondents 1 to 3 in their counter affidavit have taken on objection that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches. It is stated that respondent No.4 was adjusted in Dentistry discipline in Government Medical College, Jammu vide order No. 469-HME of 1998 dt. 3rd of July 98, whereas the petitioner came to be appointed as Lecturer in Dentistry Department, Government Medical College, Jammu, vide order dt. 10th of Nov. 2000, and therefore, she was well aware of the fact that the respondent No.4 has been adjusted as Lecturer in Dentistry discipline much earlier to her. It is stated that the petitioner did not challenge the adjustment order of respondent No.4 at the time of her selection and it is only after four years, the petitioner has approached this court. It is further stated that the appointment of petitioner as Lecturer is itself subject to the outcome of SLP filed by one Dr Parveen Akhter which matter is still pending before the Supreme Court. It is stated that the appointment/status of the petitioner is confirmed till the outcome of the said SLP, and therefore, she has no reason to challenge the valid appointment/absorption of respondent No.4. It is stated that the Dentistry department of Government Medical College, Jammu has been merged into Government Dental College, Jammu, and all the faculty members of Dentistry department of Government Medical College, Jammu, along with the petitioner and private respondent No.4 have been included in the service of Government Dental College, Jammu i.e. Dental Education. This has been done in terms of Government Order No. HME-GAZ-49/2005 dt. 17th of Aug05. It is thus stated that the services of respondent No.4 who earlier belonged to Dental Education department and subsequently absorbed in the Medical Education has been reverted to its original cadre of service. It is also stated that only a tentative seniority list has been issued and in case the petitioner is aggrieved of the same, she is at liberty to file her objections before the answering respondents. It is thus stated that respondent No.4 has only been given the charge as Assistant Professor on temporary basis and the same is not a substantive promotion. 4. Respondent No.4 in its counter has also taken an objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. It is thus stated that respondent No.4 has only been given the charge as Assistant Professor on temporary basis and the same is not a substantive promotion. 4. Respondent No.4 in its counter has also taken an objection to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches. It is stated that the adjustment/absorption of respondent No.4 vide order No.469-HME of 1998 dt. 3rd of July 98 was permanent in nature and after his absorption in Dentistry Discipline in Government Medical College, Jammu, the said respondent has been shown in the final seniority list of the members of Dentistry Discipline( Gazetted Service), Government Medical College, Jammu, issued by the Government vide Order No.564-HME of 1998 dt. 2nd of Sept98, and this inclusion of the name of answering respondent No.4 in the final seniority list was done much prior to the petitioners appointment who came to be appointed in the year 2000 and the said appointment of petitioner is also subject to the outcome of SLP which is still pending before the Supreme Court. It is thus stated that the respondent No.4 who came to be permanently absorbed in the service at a time when the petitioner was not even borne on the cadre strength and was not in the service, has rightly been shown senior to the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is the admitted case of the parties that respondent No.4 was selected and appointed as Lecturer in the discipline of Pedodonitia in Government Dental College, Srinagar, vide Government Order No.558-HME/95 dated 4th of Dec 95, by following a due process of selection by the Public Service Commission. 6. The grievance of the petitioner, however, is that respondent No.4 was selected and appointed against a post in a different service i.e. the Jammu and Kashmir Dental Education (Gazetted) Service governed by the Jammu and Kashmir Dental Education (Dental College) Gazetted Service Recruitment Rules, 1993. It is thus stated that respondent No.4 could only be appointed in Government Dental College, Srinagar, and could not have been adjusted in the dentistry department of the Government Medical College, Jammu, which is governed by a different service i.e. the Jammu and Kashmir Medical Education (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1979. It is thus stated that respondent No.4 could only be appointed in Government Dental College, Srinagar, and could not have been adjusted in the dentistry department of the Government Medical College, Jammu, which is governed by a different service i.e. the Jammu and Kashmir Medical Education (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1979. It is submitted that respondent No.4 was adjusted temporarily in the Dentistry department of Government Medical College, Jammu, on the ground that there was militancy in the valley and respondent No.4 was unable to join at Srinagar. It is submitted that respondent No.4 had ultimately to join at Srinagar when the situation becomes conducive and his mere adjustment in Government Medical College, Jammu, did not confer any substantive right in his favour for his permanent absorption in the Dentistry department of the said College at Jammu. He further submitted that the respondent No.4 after his adjustment at Jammu, withdrew his writ petition aforementioned on 28th of Jan. 97, and with the withdrawal of the writ petition by respondent No.4, the interim order passed in his favour for allowing him to join at Jammu, stood vacated. It is stated that official respondents have illegally adjusted respondent No.4 in the Dentistry Department of Government Medical College, Jammu, and have now wrongly promoted him as Incharge Assistant Professor. It is contended that respondent No.4 has not only been adjusted in the Dentistry department of Government Medical College, Jammu, but has wrongly been shown senior to the petitioner as he was not holding a substantive post in the said discipline at Government Medical College, Jammu, and was having his lien in the service of Government Dental College, Srinagar, which is his parent department. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court reported as (1994) 2 SCC 631, Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission v. Dr Narinder Mohan and AIR 2000 SC 386, Suraj Parkash Gupta v. State of J&K and Ors. 7. On the other hand, Mr DC Raina, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of private respondent No.4, has submitted that the present petition is to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. 7. On the other hand, Mr DC Raina, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of private respondent No.4, has submitted that the present petition is to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. He contended that respondent No.4 was adjusted in the Dentistry discipline of Government Medical College, Jammu, prior to the appointment of the petitioner i.e. on 3rd of July 98 vide Government Order No.469-HME of 1998, and this was done against an available post of Lecturer which had fallen vacant due to promotion of one Dr KS Kotwal, whereas the petitioner joined the service only on 10th of Nov. 2000. It is stated that the petitioner at the time of joining of her service in the Dentistry discipline of Government Medical College in the year 2000, was well aware of the fact that respondent No.4 stands already adjusted/absorbed against an available vacancy of Lecturer in the aforesaid discipline of Government Medical College, Jammu. This is because petitioner had been working as Registrar in the Government Medical College, Jammu ever since Nov. 96 and came to be appointed as Lecturer in Nov. 2000, whereas as indicated above, the respondent No.4 had already been adjusted in the Dentistry department as Lecturer in July 98 vide order dt. 3rd July 98. Therefore, the approach of the petitioner, it is stated is not bonafide. It is further contended that after the absorption of respondent No.4 in the aforesaid department at Jammu, the official respondents issued a seniority list of the members of the Dentistry discipline of Government Medical College, Jammu, vide Government Order No.564-HME of 1998 dated 2nd of Sept98, in which the name of the respondent No.4 was shown at the bottom. It is stated that at the time of issuance of the said list, the petitioner was not even borne on the cadre strength of the said service as she came to be appointed only in the year 2000, and therefore, petitioner cannot have any grievance in this regard as the respondent No.4 came to be appointed and thereafter adjusted/absorbed in the Dentistry discipline of Government Medical College, Jammu, much earlier to the joining of service by the petitioner. It is further stated that the appointment of petitioner itself was subject to the outcome of SLP filed by one Dr Parveen Akhter bearing SLP (Civil) No.18016 of 2000. It is further stated that the appointment of petitioner itself was subject to the outcome of SLP filed by one Dr Parveen Akhter bearing SLP (Civil) No.18016 of 2000. In the said SLP, the petitioner had become an intervenor and filed an affidavit justifying the adjustment of the respondent No.4 at Jammu. It is thus contended that when the petitioner has already taken a stand before the Apex Court in the aforesaid case justifying the adjustment of respondent No.4 at Jammu, then she is estopped from questioning the adjustment/absorption of respondent No.4 in this court that too at a belated stage. It is further stated that one Dr Riyaz Farooq and Dr M.Yaqoob Dar were selected as Lecturers in Dentistry Faculty, Government Medical College, Jammu under the Recruitment Rules of 1979 and thereafter were shifted to Government Dental College, Srinagar and their services are now governed by the Rules of 1993 under which rules, the respondent No.4 was also appointed in Dental College, Srinagar. It is thus stated that respondent No.4 was rightly adjusted/absorbed by the Government in Dentistry department of Government Medical College, Jammu. It is further stated that the Government vide Order No.476/HME of 2005 dt. 17th of Aug05 has transferred and shifted the lien of all the faculty members of the Medical Education, Government Medical College, Jammu, including that of the petitioner and the answering respondent to Government Dental College, Jammu. It is thus stated that with this shifting, the lien of respondent No.4 has been transferred back to his parent department. 8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the considered opinion that this petition is without any merit and deserves to be dismissed on the following grounds: Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Government Medical College, Jammu, vide Government Order No. 813-HME of 2000 dt. 10th of Nov. 2000 whereas respondent No.4 was also appointed as Lecturer in Government Dental College, Srinagar, through a proper selection held by the Public Service Commission vide Government Order No. 558-HME/95 dt.4th of Dec 95. Petitioner, however, due to the militancy in the valley could not join at Srinagar. He filed a writ petition bearing SWP No. 1518/95. 10th of Nov. 2000 whereas respondent No.4 was also appointed as Lecturer in Government Dental College, Srinagar, through a proper selection held by the Public Service Commission vide Government Order No. 558-HME/95 dt.4th of Dec 95. Petitioner, however, due to the militancy in the valley could not join at Srinagar. He filed a writ petition bearing SWP No. 1518/95. This court in the aforesaid writ petition passed the following interim order on 13th of Dec95:-- "....As such, in the meantime subject to the objections from the otherwise, the appointment of the petitioner shall not be cancelled, if he is not in a position for any valid reason to join within twenty one days as stipulated in clause (ii) of the Government Order No.558-HME dated 4.12.1995." Thereafter on 26th of Nov. 96, this court in an interim application in the aforesaid writ petition passed the following order:-- ".....In the meantime, the order dated 18.11.1996 is modified to the extent that respondents shall not force the petitioner to join at Srinagar but they shall be at liberty to post him on an appropriate post in Jammu Province, till the main petition is taken up." On 3rd of July 98, the Additional Secretary to Government, Medical Education Department, passed the following order:-- @TBLCEN = Government of Jammu and Kashmir Medical Education Department Sub:- Promotion of Doctors of Dentistry discipline Govt. Medical College, Jammu. ....................... .................... On promotion of Dr K.S. Kotwal, post of Lecturer Dentistry department has fallen vacant. Dr Ram Krishan Gupta Lecturer transferred from Dental College, Srinagar and adjusted in Dentistry discipline Govt. Medical College, Jammu against the post of B-Grade Specialist vide Got. Order No.24-HME of 1997 dated 7.01.1997 is hereby adjusted as Lecturer in Dentistry discipline Govt. Medical College, Jammu. By order of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir. Sd/- (M.Yamin Qureshi) Additional Secretary to Government Medical Education Department..........." On 3rd July 98 itself, a corrigendum was issued by the Under Secretary to the Government, Medical Education Department to the effect that the name of Dr Ram Krishan Gupta mentioned in Government Order No.469-HME of 1998 dt. 3rd July 98 be read as Dr Rakesh Krishan Gupta. 9. Thereafter vide Government Order No.564-HME of 1998 dated 2nd of Sept98, a seniority list of the members of Dentistry Discipline was issued in which the name of respondent No.4 has been shown at Sl.No.(v) of the Lecturers of the said Discipline. 3rd July 98 be read as Dr Rakesh Krishan Gupta. 9. Thereafter vide Government Order No.564-HME of 1998 dated 2nd of Sept98, a seniority list of the members of Dentistry Discipline was issued in which the name of respondent No.4 has been shown at Sl.No.(v) of the Lecturers of the said Discipline. In this list, the name of the petitioner did not figure as she had not even joined the service at that point of time and came to be appointed as Lecturer in the said discipline only in Nov. 2000. Therefore, she has to rank junior to the respondent No.4. It is pertinent to mention that the appointment of petitioner itself was subject to the outcome of SLP (Civil) No.18016 of 2000, filed by one Dr Parveen Akhter. In the said SLP, the petitioner has filed an affidavit justifying the appointment/adjustment of the respondent No.4 in the Dentistry Department of Government Medical College, Jammu. The relevant part of the assertions made by the petitioner in her counter affidavit filed before the Supreme Court are reproduced below:-- ".....The High Court in the Writ petition considered the overall situation in the valley of Kashmir created due to outbreak of militancy, directed the Government to post said Dr.Rakesh Krishan Gupta at Jammu at a place which thought suitable by the Government for him. It is submitted that Government has the plenary powers of posting of employees anywhere in the State of Jammu and Kashmir and in order to comply with the directions of the High Court, they ordered posting of Dr. Rajesh Krishan Gupta in the Medical Education Department at Jammu as a Lecturer against the available post of B.Grade Dental Specialist, vacated by the retirement of Dr OP Gupta, B.grade Dental Specialist......" 10. A perusal of above assertions made by the petitioner in the counter affidavit before the Supreme Court clearly shows that the petitioner was fully aware at the time of her joining the serve that respondent No.4 has already been adjusted in the Dentistry discipline of Government Medical College, Jammu against an available vacancy of B.Grade Dental Specialist vacated by one Dr OP Gupta, and that a final seniority list of the said department has already been issued showing the respondent No.4 as one of its members who figured at the bottom of the said seniority list. 11. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cause of action has arisen to the petitioner only when the official respondents have shown the respondent No.4 as a permanent member of Dentistry discipline of Government Medical College, Jammu by circulating the seniority list. It is stated that respondent No.4s adjustment does not confer any substantive right in his favour, and therefore, petitioner has filed this petition without any delay on her part. 12. The said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is not sustainable because the final seniority list was circulated by the official respondents vide Government Order No.564-HME of 1998 dt. 2nd of Sept 98, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure R.8 with the counter/objections filed by private respondent No.4. Petitioner was not even borne on the cadre strength of Dentistry Discipline of Government Medical College, Jammu, at that particular point of time when respondent No.4 had already been declared to be a member of the said discipline by the official respondents. She came to be appointed only in Nov 2000. Even after joining of service by the petitioner in the year 2000, she did not challenge the adjustment/absorption of the respondent No.4 in the aforesaid discipline in Government Medical College, Jammu, as the present writ petition has been filed in Dec 2004 i.e. after more than four years of joining of service by the petitioner. This delay in approaching the court has not been explained by the petitioner. The present approach on behalf of the petitioner seems to be only an after thought as at the time of her joining the service in the year 2000, she did not approach the court because she was fully aware that the services of respondent No.4 have been absorbed in the Dentistry Discipline of Government Medical College, Jammu, much earlier to her joining the service and she is junior to respondent No.4. The petitioner was also fully aware of the fact that she has filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court in the aforementioned SLP justifying the adjustment/absorption of the respondent No.4 in the Dentistry discipline of Government Medical College, Jammu. The petitioner was also fully aware of the fact that she has filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court in the aforementioned SLP justifying the adjustment/absorption of the respondent No.4 in the Dentistry discipline of Government Medical College, Jammu. The petitioner by filing the present petition has now tried to mislead the court because on the one hand, she has taken a stand before the Supreme Court justifying the adjustment of respondent No.4 at Jammu and on the other hand has filed the present writ petition challenging the adjustment/absorption of the respondent No.4 in Dentistry Discipline at Government Medical College, Jammu, that too at a belated stage. 13. Not only this, the petitioner was working as Registrar in the Dentistry discipline of Government Medical College, Jammu w.e.f. Nov 96 uptill her appointment as Lecturer in the said discipline in Nov 2000, and therefore, she was well aware of the fact that respondent No.4 has already been adjusted/absorbed in the said discipline as Lecturer w.e.f. July 98. But the petitioner did not challenge the said adjustment of the respondent No.4 even at the time of her joining the service in the year 2000. 14. When a party comes to the court at a belated stage, then the discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not to be exercised in his or her favour and the delayed approach of the party would deprive him/her from the said right as has been laid down by the Apex Court as under:-- 15. In AIR 1981 SC 597, Roshan Lal and other v. International Airport Authority of India and others, their Lordships of the Supreme Court held as under:-- "One of the principal submissions made by Smt Shyamla Pappu, learned counsel for the petitioners was that the appointment of the respondents as Airport Officers (Ops.) was mad at a time when there was no sanction for such posts and therefore their appointment was illegal. Other reasons were also advanced in support of the claim that the respondents were irregularly appointed as Airport Officers. We are afraid that it is rather late in the day for the petitioners to question the appointment of the respondents as Airport Officer (Ops.). The respondents were appointed as Airport Officers in 1975 and the present writ petitions were filed in 1978. We are afraid that it is rather late in the day for the petitioners to question the appointment of the respondents as Airport Officer (Ops.). The respondents were appointed as Airport Officers in 1975 and the present writ petitions were filed in 1978. We do not think we will be justified in reopening the questions of the legality of the appointment of respondents as Airport Officers several years after their appointment...." 15. In AIR 1987 SC 251, State of M.P. and others v. Nand Lal Jaiswal and Others, it has been held as under:- "Now, it is well settled that the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High Court in the exercise ot is discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a writ petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The evolution of this rule of laches or delay is premised upon a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy under the writ jurisdiction because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices. The rights of third parties may intervene and if the writ jurisdiction is exercised on a writ petition filed after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice on third parties. When the writ jurisdiction of the High Court is invoked, unexplained delay coupled with the creation of third party rights in the meanwhile is an important factor which always weighs with the High Court in deciding whether or not to exercise such jurisdiction......." 16. In AIR 1993 SC 2276 Ratan Chandra Sammanta and others v. Union of India and others, on the question of delay and laches, the Supreme Court held as under:- "..........Delay itself deprives a person of his remedy available in law. In AIR 1993 SC 2276 Ratan Chandra Sammanta and others v. Union of India and others, on the question of delay and laches, the Supreme Court held as under:- "..........Delay itself deprives a person of his remedy available in law. In absence of any fresh cause of action or any legislation, a person who has lost his remedy by lapse of time loses his right as well." In AIR 1996 SC 2526, Central Bank of India v. S.Satyam and others, it has been held as under:-- "In our opinion the lapse of long period of several year prior to the filing of the writ petition is sufficient to decline any relief to the respondents." 17. The petitioner in the present case, as indicated above, joined the service in the year 2000 as Lecturer. She was working as a Registrar in the Dentistry Department of the Government Medical College, Jammu, since 1996 uptill her appointment as Lecturer in the said discipline in Nov 2000. Therefore, she was well aware of the fact of adjustment/absorption of the respondent No.4 as Lecturer in the said discipline in July 98. She however, filed the present writ petition after four years of her joining the service. No plausible reason whatsoever has been shown in not filing the writ petition for a period of four years. Even otherwise, respondent No.4 was adjusted/absorbed in the Dentistry Discipline of Government Medical College, Jammu, prior to the appointment of the petitioner which is clear from the perusal of the final seniority list issued by the official respondents vide order dt. 2nd of Sept 98. Moreover, the petitioner herself has justified the adjustment/absorption of the respondent No.4 at Jammu by filing a counter affidavit before the Supreme Court in SLP aforementioned. Therefore, this petition is required to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches and also on the ground of estoppel that the petitioner herself has justified the said adjustment/absorption of respondent No.4. The petitioner has not approached this court with clean hands. 18. Even on merit, petitioner has no case. Respondent No.4 was initially selected as Lecturer in the Government Dental College, Srinagar, but was adjusted in the Dentistry Discipline of Government Medical College, Jammu, on the ground of militancy. This appointment of respondent No.4 was under the Jammu & Kashmir Dental Education (Dental College) Gazetted Service Rules of 1993. 18. Even on merit, petitioner has no case. Respondent No.4 was initially selected as Lecturer in the Government Dental College, Srinagar, but was adjusted in the Dentistry Discipline of Government Medical College, Jammu, on the ground of militancy. This appointment of respondent No.4 was under the Jammu & Kashmir Dental Education (Dental College) Gazetted Service Rules of 1993. The services of the said respondent were shifted to Jammu and he was adjusted in the Dentistry discipline of Government Medical College, Jammu, which services were governed by the Jammu & Kashmir Government Medical College (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1979. Now with the establishment of Dental College at Jammu, which is now governed by the Rules of 1993, the services of the respondent No.4 have been shifted/transferred to his parent cadre along with the petitioner who came to be appointed under the Rules of 1979 but with the transfer/merger of Dentistry Department of Government Medical College, Jammu, into Government Dental College, Jammu, which has been done by the Government vide Order dt. 17th of Aug 05, referred to above, the services of the petitioner are also now governed by the Rules of 1993, as all the faculty members of Dentistry Department of Government Medical College, Jammu, have been transferred/shifted to Government Dental College, Jammu. Therefore, the petitioner cannot have any grievance because she admittedly is junior to the respondent No.4 who came to be appointed in the year 1995 and was adjusted/absorbed as Lecturer in Dentistry Discipline of Government Medical College, Jammu, in July 98 whereas the petitioner came to be appointed as Lecturer in the said discipline in Nov 2000. Therefore, petitioner cannot claim seniority over and above respondent No.4. Moreover, the appointment of petitioner is subject to the outcome of SLP aforementioned, which is still pending before the Supreme Court. The authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not relevant to the facts of the present case. 19. So far as the promotion of respondent No.4 as Incharge Assistant Professor is concerned, for this, the petitioner should have no grievance because the respondent No.4 is senior to the petitioner and having a good record. Furthermore, this promotion, as per the stand taken by official respondents has been made on temporary basis and not on substantive basis. 19. So far as the promotion of respondent No.4 as Incharge Assistant Professor is concerned, for this, the petitioner should have no grievance because the respondent No.4 is senior to the petitioner and having a good record. Furthermore, this promotion, as per the stand taken by official respondents has been made on temporary basis and not on substantive basis. The official respondents have rightly stated that the substantive appointment to the post of Assistant Professor would be done in accordance with the rules at the relevant time, and therefore, no direction is required to be passed in this regard. 20. For the reasons mentioned above, this petition is found to be without merit and is dismissed.