Devi Prasad Singh, J.:- Present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been preferred against the impugned order dated 2.8.2008, passed by the Registrar Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Medical University, U.P. Lucknow, contained in Annexure No.1 and the order dated 20.11.2006, passed by the Chancellor U. P. King Gorge Dental Science University, Lucknow contained in Annexure No.2 to the writ petition, allowing the application of the respondent No.4 for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor (Orthodontics). 2.Brief matrix relating to the present controversy is discussed hereinafter. 3.The petitioner was selected and appointed on the post of Assistant Professor (Orthodontics) in King George Medical College, in accordance with Rules in pursuance of the advertisement issued for the purpose on 31.5.2002. He joined on 3.6.2002 on the post of Assistant Professor (Orthodontics). 4.Another post of Assistant Professor/Lecturer (Orthodontics) was advertised by the respondent University on 7.1.2004. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the respondent No.4 applied. He was selected for the post of Assistant Professor by the Selection Committee on 23.12.2004 and in consequence thereof, he joined on the post of Assistant Professor (Orthodontics) on 14.1.2005. It shall be relevant to take note of the fact that admittedly, the opposite party No.4 earlier to his appointmentn in Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj Medical University U.P., Lucknow (in short the University), was an Associate Professor in Dentistry, B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur. In B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur, there is no separate wing of Dental Science. However, the respondent No.4 was working as Associate Professor for Dentistry with effect from 20.11.2002. 5. The respondent No.4 moved an application dated 29.7.2005 to the Vice-Chancellor of the respondent University with the prayer that the services rendered in the B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur, should be counted and he may be promoted on the post of Associate Professor. Feeling aggrieved with the inaction on the part of the respondent University, respondent No.4 filed Writ Petition No.1055 (S/B) of 2006, which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 7.8.2006, directing the opposite party No.2 to decide the representation. Feeling aggrieved with the inaction on the part of the respondent University, respondent No.4 filed Writ Petition No.1055 (S/B) of 2006, which was disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 7.8.2006, directing the opposite party No.2 to decide the representation. The opposite party No.2, by an order dated 1.9.2006, rejected the representation of the respondent No.4 on the ground that while serving in B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur, he was holding the post of Associate Professor in Dentistry, hence, said service rendered, there cannot be counted for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor (Orthodontics) in the University. The Vice-chancellor took decision with regard to service career of the respondent No.4 keeping in view the provisions contained in Statute No.11.02 B-3 of the First Statute of Lucknow University. 6.Decision taken by the vice-Chancellor rejecting the claim of the respondent No.4 was the subject matter in Writ Petition filed by the respondent No.4. However, in the meantime, the reference was also made to the Chancellor of University who by the impugned order, allowed the representation directing the respondent University to promote the respondent No.4 on the post of Associate Professor. In these circumstances, the writ petition preferred by the respondent No.4, i.e., Writ Petition No.1595 (S/B) of 2006, was dismissed as infructuous. 7.Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order, passed by the Chancellor, the petitioner preferred present writ petition which raises following questions for adjudication by this Court:- (1)Whether, experience obtained by the respondent No.4 for the subject of Dentistry in B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur, may be counted for his promotion on the post of Associate Professor (Orthodontics) in the respondent University as held by the Chancellor ? (2)Whether, under the Statutes of the respondent University or Rules framed by the Dental Council of India or any other law time being in force, a person of different subject, may be appointed or promoted in other subject on the post of Associate Professor in the present, the subject of Orthodontics ? (2)Whether, under the Statutes of the respondent University or Rules framed by the Dental Council of India or any other law time being in force, a person of different subject, may be appointed or promoted in other subject on the post of Associate Professor in the present, the subject of Orthodontics ? 8.The First Statute of 11.02 B-3, relied upon by the petitioner's counsel, is reproduced as under:- "11.02 B-3:- Associate Professor: MDS or equivalent degree as recognised by the Dental Council of India with at least 4 years teaching experience as Assistant Professor or equivalent as recognised by the Dental Council of India in the subject concerned." 9.Giving literal interpretation to the Statute No.11.02 B-3, it appears that experience of 4 years should be counted for appointment of an Assistance Professor on the post of Associate Professor in the subject concerned. 10.Mohd. Farooq Ahmad, learned counsel for the petitioner keeping in view the aforesaid Statute No.11.02 B-3, vehemently argued that no person can be promoted or appointed on the post of Associate Professor unless he possesses experience in the subject of Orthodontics. It has also been submitted that the subject of Dentistry is a different discipline and in the respondent University also, the teachers of both subjects are appointed and engaged separately. There are different teachers who are imparting education in the subject of Dentistry and different teachers are imparting education in the subject of Orthodontics. Accordingly, it has been argued by the petitioner's counsel that experience acquired by the respondent No.4 in the subject of Dentistry at B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur, cannot be counted for the purpose of promotion on the post of Associate Professor. It has been submitted that the respondent No.4 was posted in B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur, in the Dentistry and there was no occasion for him to join in the respondent University on the post of Associate Professor and once, he joined, he can avail promotional avenues in accordance with the Statute of Chhatrapati Shahu Ji Maharaj University and not otherwise. Further submission is that the respondent No.4 joined on the post of Assistant Professor on 14.1.2005. So far as the question of subjectwise seniority is concerned, the petitioner being appointed and joined in June, 2002, is much senior than the respondent No.4. Further submission is that the respondent No.4 joined on the post of Assistant Professor on 14.1.2005. So far as the question of subjectwise seniority is concerned, the petitioner being appointed and joined in June, 2002, is much senior than the respondent No.4. 11.It has been vehemently argued that experience acquired by the respondent No.4 in different subject cannot be counted for promotion to the post of Associate Professor in the discipline of Orthodontics. 12.Learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the decision taken by the Vice-Chancellor rejecting the claim of the respondent No.4 is perfectly in accordance with law and the Chancellor while allowing the representation and passing the impugned order, has failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in him without taking into account the grounds taken by the Vice-Chancellor. 13.Sri Sandeep Dixit learned counsel for the respondent No.4, has submitted that under report of the Tikko Commission, the experience of the post of teacher is sufficient and may be counted while considering the promotional avenue of the post of Assistant Professor. It has also been stated that Statute No.11.02 B-3 of the First Statute, relates to direct recruit and does not cover the promotee. He relied upon the circular of the Government of India dated 5.12.1977, a copy of which is contained in Annexure No.CA-1 to the counter affidavit. 14.It shall be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the Circular dated 5.12.1977 which is the extract of motion passed by the General Body of the Dental Council of India: "That the teaching experience acquired by Professors/Associate Professors/Assistant Professors in the Dental Departments of Medical Colleges should be counted as "Teaching Experience" for appointments/promotion etc., as a Dental Teacher for the purposes of teaching the BDS Course in Dental Colleges; provided the teacher concerned has the required qualifications etc., as prescribed by the Council." 15.Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has also relied upon the supplementary affidavit which contains the extracts of Tikko Commission which provides that for promotion to the post of Associate Professor, four years regular service on the post of Assistant Professor shall be mandatory. 16.It has not been disputed that the opposite party No.4 was appointed on the post of Assistant Professor in pursuance of Advertisement dated 7.1.2004 a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No.RA-5 to the rejoinder affidavit. 16.It has not been disputed that the opposite party No.4 was appointed on the post of Assistant Professor in pursuance of Advertisement dated 7.1.2004 a copy of which has been filed as Annexure No.RA-5 to the rejoinder affidavit. It shall be appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the advertisement dated 7.1.2004 as under: "King George Medical University, Lucknow (Upgraded King George's Medical College, Lucknow) Advertisement No.9/B-2004 Dated: 07:01:2004 Applications are invited from the Indian Citizens for the post of Asstt. Professor in the pay scale of 10000-325-15200, Lecturer in the pay scale of 8550-275-14600, in the various departments of King George's Medical University, Lucknow belonging to the appropriate category as mentioned against the name of the post. S. No. Department Name of Post Category No. of Post 1 Oral & Dental Pathology etc. Lecturer/Assistant Professor SC Gen OBC 02 02 01 2 Orthodontics Lecturer/Assistant Professor Gen 01 3 Pedodontics Lecturer/Assistant Professor Gen 01 4. Prosthodontics Lecturer/Assistant Professor Gen OBC 01 01 General Information: The age (relaxation as per rules) and qualifications required are as per the First Statutes of Lucknow University, or First Statutes of King George's Medical University Lucknow whichever is applicable at the time of interview. For such posts where qualification is not mentioned in Statutes it will be same as per MCI recommendation. Candidate having minimum three years of teaching experience after the post graduate degree in the concerned subject will be considered for appointment as Asstt. Professor & if suitable candidates are not found for Assistant Professor then selection committee may consider for appointment as Lecturers. The application forms can be obtained in person on payment of Rs.300/- in cash from the Office of the Finance Officer or on mailing a Bank Draft of Rs.400/- payable to Finance Officer, King George's Medical University, Lucknow from 15.10.2004 to 16.02.2004. Completed applications on prescribed form along with a Bank Draft of Rs.1500/- in favour of Finance Officer, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, payable at Lucknow and should reach the Office of undersigned latest by 23.02.2004. Application of candidates not fulfilling the requisite qualification or incomplete in any form shall not be entertained. Completed applications on prescribed form along with a Bank Draft of Rs.1500/- in favour of Finance Officer, King George's Medical University, Lucknow, payable at Lucknow and should reach the Office of undersigned latest by 23.02.2004. Application of candidates not fulfilling the requisite qualification or incomplete in any form shall not be entertained. Illegible (R.P. Goswami) Registrar" 17.A perusal of the above advertisement at the face of record, shows that for the post of Assistant Professor (Orthodontics) it is provided that as per MCI recommendation candidate should have 3 years teaching experience after post graduate degree in the concerned subject. Meaning thereby, for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (Orthodontics), it was necessary that the persons concerned must have experience of three (3) years teaching in the concerned subject apart from qualification. 18.Accordingly, apart from the minimum qualification in the subject concerned, experience of three years is also necessary for appointment on the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor (Orthodontics). However, the respondent No.4 was appointed on the post of Assistant Professor (Orthodontics) though, he was having experience of different subject i.e., Dentistry in B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur. Since initial appointment is not in question, we are not inclined to make any further observation with that regard. 19.Though, petitioner's counsel relied upon the Regulation 2007 of Dental Council of India while making submission that experience in the subject concerned is necessary but it has been stated by the respondent's counsel that the Circular 5.12.1977 has been revived. 20.While considering various provisions referred by the learned counsel for the parties during the course of hearing, we have to construe the Circular dated 5.12.1977 relied upon by the respondents' counsel vis-a-vis First Statutes of the University and the advertisement while filling up the vacancy of the Assistant Professor (Orthodontics). 21.The advertisement for appointment on the post of Assistant Professor (Orthodontics) contained the condition precedent that persons concerned must have possessed required qualification for the subject of Orthodontics coupled with experience. Relevant Statutes of the University also reveal that experience in the subject concerned, should be possessed by the teacher concerned. 22.It has been argued by Sri Sandeep Dixit that experience of the subject concerned is meant for direct recruitment. We fail to appreciate that why, how and in what manner, there can be two qualifications for the same post. Relevant Statutes of the University also reveal that experience in the subject concerned, should be possessed by the teacher concerned. 22.It has been argued by Sri Sandeep Dixit that experience of the subject concerned is meant for direct recruitment. We fail to appreciate that why, how and in what manner, there can be two qualifications for the same post. One for direct recruitment, i.e., the experience in the subject concerned and other for promotees while appointing a person on the substantive post of Assistant Professor, it is mandatory that person concerned must have experience in the subject concerned in the present case, the Orthodontics. Thus, there appears to be no ground or justification to record a finding that for the post of Associate Professor in the subject of Orthodontics, a person having experience of other discipline like Dentistry in the present case, may fulfil the requirement for the purpose of promotion. Once, the discipline of Orthodontics and Dentistry are different discipline in respondent University as is evident from the record, then persons having experience in the subject of different discipline, cannot be said to have any right for being granted promotion in other discipline of the University. 23.The medical field is a specialised field and the experience in the field concerned, obtained by a teacher, carries weight. Promotional avenue on a higher post requires more experience in the concerned field. A person having experience in one subject may be while serving other University, cannot be held to possess the required qualification for promotion to next higher post in other discipline. 24.Apparently from the appointment letter of the respondent No.4 it is evident that he was an Associate Professor (Dentistry), in B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur, though, his experience in the subject of Dentistry, has also been disputed by the petitioner's counsel. Courts are not expert to record finding on such arguments advanced by the petitioner's counsel. However, there appears to be no doubt that respondent No.4 was having experience of the subject of Dentistry while serving in B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur. He does not possess 4 years experience in the subject of Orthodontics. Keeping in view the fact that he had joined only on 14.1.2005, experience of petitioner in the subject of Orthodontics is much more than the respondent No.4 who does not possess required experience of four years in subject concerned. He does not possess 4 years experience in the subject of Orthodontics. Keeping in view the fact that he had joined only on 14.1.2005, experience of petitioner in the subject of Orthodontics is much more than the respondent No.4 who does not possess required experience of four years in subject concerned. 25.It has also been submitted by petitioner's counsel that the subject of Dentistry was not recognised by the Dental Council of India in B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur. We are not concerned with this aspect of the matter more so when the respondent No.4 has been appointed in the respondent University and his initial appointment is not in issue. 26.In the case of (2008) 1 SCC 798 : ( AIR 2007 SCW 7666 ) Nagendra Chandra and others Vs. State of Jharkhand and others, their lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court held that appointment can be only in accordance with qualification prescribed in the Rules and advertisement made for the purpose. No person can be promoted or appointed de hors the Rules lacking qualification in the subject concerned. 27. In another case reported in (2008) 5 SCC 241 : ( AIR 2008 SC 3170 ) Government of Andhra Pradesh and others. Vs. K. Brahmanandam and others, their lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court again emphasised that teachers must be appointed in accordance with Rules and qualification given therein. No order or mandamus can be issued by any authority even the courts, to regularise the services of a person who does not possess the requisite qualification in accordance with Service Rules. 28. In the case reported in (2008) 7 SCC 153 : (2008 (4) ALJ 207) Pramod Kumar. Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and others, their lordships held that in case there is any illegality at the time of initial appointment with regard to minimum qualification, that cannot be cured at later stage. Only those persons can be appointed who possess requisite qualification provided under the Service Rules. 29. In the case reported in (2008) 9 SCC 396 : ( AIR 2009 SC 191 ) Kerala State Electricity Board. Vs. Saratchandran P. and another, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Article 14 has got positive concept, and a person who is ultimately not found to be entitled for promotion, cannot be saved to hold the post. 29. In the case reported in (2008) 9 SCC 396 : ( AIR 2009 SC 191 ) Kerala State Electricity Board. Vs. Saratchandran P. and another, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that Article 14 has got positive concept, and a person who is ultimately not found to be entitled for promotion, cannot be saved to hold the post. 30.In the present case, the information brochure, First Statute of University, the advertisement issued for the appointment on the post of Assistant Professor of Orthodontics, the infrastructure of University shows that the Dentistry and Orthodontics are two different disciplines with different qualification and teachers are also selected and appointed in these two disciplines keeping in view their respective qualification. Accordingly, experience availed by the respondent No.4 in the subject of Dentistry in B.R.D. Medical College, Gorakhpur, cannot be counted for promotion to the post of Associate Professior in the respondent University. 31.Reliance has been placed on behalf of the respondent on a judgment reported in (2007) 10 SCC 201 : ( AIR 2007 SC 2264 ) Maharashtra University of Health Sciences presented by Dy. Registrar. Vs. Paryani Mukesh Jawaharlal and others, with emphasis that the order or circular of Dental Council of India, have binding force. The judgment seems to be of no help. Undoubtedly, it is the Dental Council of India, to maintain standard of education. The circular or order passed by Dental Council of India, possess binding effect, there is no dispute over this proposition of law. 32.Reliance placed on the Circular dated 5.12.1977 does not seem to make out a case to count the experience of the respondent No.4 for the purpose of subject of Orthodontics. The said circular speaks only for counting of only 4 years experience without dealing with various discipline of a medical college. Accordingly, counting of 4 years experience as provided by the said Circular dated 5.12.1977, is for experience in the department concerned is of a general nature. It does not deal with the disciplines separately. Moreover, keeping in view the Statutes of respondent University which has not been impugned by the respondent at no stage for any reason, it is mandatory to possess 4 years experience of Orthodontics while considering a person for promotion to the post of Associate Professor. In view of the above, the writ petition deserved to be allowed. 33.Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. In view of the above, the writ petition deserved to be allowed. 33.Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order dated 2.8.2008 and 20.11.2006 contained in Annexurer No.1 and 2 to the writ petition passed by the respondent No.3 and 1, with consequential benefits. No orders as to costs.