1. The petitioner while responding to advertisement notice No.2 of 2007 as against the post of Additional Professor in the faculty of Nephrology, was found eligible, so had been called for interview but apprehended that he may not be selected due to pendency of a criminal case, therefore, filed SWP No.1818/2007 in which interim direction on 20.12.2007 was issued directing the respondents to consider the petitioner for the post of Additional Professor in Nephrology notwithstanding the criminal case pending against him It was also directed that the result of the petitioner be produced in the Court in a sealed cover which the respondents did. As per the result the petitioner was selected. The main petition came to be finally disposed of with the direction to the respondents to accord promotion to the petitioner to the higher post in terms of the Apical Selection Committee decision with a rider that the promotion shall remain subject to outcome of the criminal case as is pending against the petitioner. Resultantly vide Govt. order No.48-SKIMS of 2008 dated April 5, 2008, sanction has been accorded to the promotion of the petitioner as Additional Professor Department of Nephrology with effect from l.7.2007. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the promotion should have been granted to him with effect from 1.7.2003. Such prayer for grant of promotion with effect from the year 2003 prompted Dr. Saleem Najar to file an application for impleadment, as a result thereof stand impleaded as party so figure as respondent No.3. 3. The case projected in opposition by the respondent No.1 and 2 is that the grant of promotion with effect from 1.7.2003 to the petitioner is impermissible. 4. This case has its own chequered history. For appreciating the controversy in right perspective, it shall be advantageous to notice the factual background of the case: 5. Initially an advertisement notice was issued in the year 2001 for the post of Additional Professor, Nephrology. The petitioner having applied was also called for interview but in the call letter it was recorded that the petitioner will be interviewed subject to consideration of his teaching experience with effect from 18.6.1991 to 5.10.1993 in the specially of Nephrology but before that interview could be conducted, fresh advertisement notice was issued on 28th of July, 2001. Petitioner responded to the said advertisement notice. Petitioner as well as another person, namely, Dr. Petitioner responded to the said advertisement notice. Petitioner as well as another person, namely, Dr. Khurshid Ahmad Banday apprehended that they may not be permitted to participate in the selection process, filed petition (SWP) No.461/2002, wherein an interim direction came to be passed on 9.4.2002, where-under respondents were directed to interview the petitioner No.1 therein (petitioner herein) Tor the post of Additional Professor and petitioner No.2 therein for the post of Associate Professor Nephrology. It was also made clear that conducting of interview shall not confer any right to the petitioners, until their eligibility is finally determined by the Court, the result of the petitioners shall not be declared. 6. During the course of arguments reference was made to the said petition i.e. SWP No.461/2002, same on direction has been listed along with, so is also taken up for disposal with this petition. 7. Perusal of the record of that petition would indicate that in the reply filed by the respondents therein, it has been projected that for competing for the post of Additional Professor, the petitioners therein were required to possess the Degree of DM Nephrology. The matter has remained as it is. In the meantime another situation arose i.e. as against the petitioner a criminal case was registered which on completion of investigation resulted in filing the charge sheet (challan) before the competent court, as a result of which the petitioner was placed under suspension on 29.6.2001 but reinstated on 22.1.2003 pursuant to Govt. order No.114-GAD of 2003, with a condition "that the period of suspension shall be decided separately after the final investigation report is received from the Crime Branch". Petitioner aggrieved of such condition filed petition (SWP) No.1565/2004 which came to be disposed of on 14.7.2005 with the direction to the competent authority to decide the period of suspension in accordance with rules. 8. In the year 2001 on the recommendations of Apical Selection Committee vide Govt. order No.14-IMS of 2001 dated June 30, 2001, appointments were made as against the vacancies in various departments but no recommendation had been made vis-a-vis Department of Nephrology. Than in the year 2005 Apical Selection Committee in its meeting held from August 25th to 29, 2005 and October 05, 2005 made recommendations for appointment to the grade of Additional Professor under Assessment Merit Promotion Scheme. 9. Than in the year 2005 Apical Selection Committee in its meeting held from August 25th to 29, 2005 and October 05, 2005 made recommendations for appointment to the grade of Additional Professor under Assessment Merit Promotion Scheme. 9. Vide Govt order No.43-SKIMS of 2007 dated October 17, 2005, promotion of faculty members was made in terms of Assessment Merit Promotion Scheme. The respondent, No.3, Dr. Mohammad Saleem Najar, was promoted as Additional Professor in the Department of Nephrology notionally with effect from 1.7.2003 and on regular basis with effect from 1.7.2005. The said order has not been challenged till date. 10. The case of the petitioner had also been considered by the Apical Selection Committee in the year 2005 but the petitioner failed to make the grade as is clearly indicated in the reply filed by the respondents, so the said order of promotion dated October 17, 2005 has attained the finality. 11. In the year 2007 again the case of the petitioner has been considered by the above referred Committee wherein he has made the grade and with the intervention of the Court his promotion order was permitted to be given effect which is to remain subject to outcome of the pending criminal case. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that when he had responded to the advertisement notice in the year 2001, his result was not declared nor anyone was promoted to the post of Additional Professor in the Department of Nephrology. In ease he would have made the grade, then he could have been promoted with retrospective effect. That situation has also been taken note of and replied by the respondents in their reply which they have filed to this petition, indicating therein that as per criteria the petitioner could not secure the required 50 marks though his candidature was objected on the count of lack of qualification but still 15 marks as were earmarked for basic eligibility (qualification) were awarded to the petitioner but could secure only 46 marks. Therefore, SWP No.461/2002, so far it relates to the petitioner, has become infructuous. 13. Therefore, SWP No.461/2002, so far it relates to the petitioner, has become infructuous. 13. Though the result was to be declared of that process with the permission of the Court but in view of the developments as have taken place as noticed hereinabove, the respondents have clarified the position because in that process requirement of possessing DM Nephrology was an issue but since the petitioner under the direction of the Court was permitted to participate and after participation the requisite, marks earmarked for such qualification were awarded to the petitioner but still he could not make the grade, that is why his name did not figure in the list. Not only that, no one was selected for the post of Additional Professor in the Department of Nephrology. That writ petition by itself in view of the said facts having become infructuous shall stand dismissed as against the petitioner whereas as against petitioner No.2 therein in default. 14. The grievance of the petitioner that he should have been promoted with effect from 1.7.2003 has no basis it all, more particularly in view of the fact that in the year 2005 he has failed to make the grade, whereas as against him respondent No.3 Dr. Mohammad Saleem Najar having made the grade has been selected. Without challenging that order the petitioner cannot claim promotion with retrospective effect. In any case when in the year 2005 he was not found fit as having failed to make the grade, he cannot claim promotion even with effect from 2005. Subsequently in the year 2007 he has been considered by the Apical Selection Committee under AMPS scheme, therefore, has been promoted. 15. The contention of the learned counsel that on the basis of the pendency of the criminal case, he has been excluded from the zone of consideration in the year 2001 or in the year 2005, is neither here nor there because in the year 2001 he has been excluded as having not secured the requisite 50 marks whereas in the year 2005 he has failed to make the grade and same has not been challenged. 16. Another contention, of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Assessment Merit Promotion Scheme (AMPS) has been approved by the governing body on November 4, 2004, therefore, in terms of Govt. 16. Another contention, of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Assessment Merit Promotion Scheme (AMPS) has been approved by the governing body on November 4, 2004, therefore, in terms of Govt. order No.43 dated October 17, 2005, notional promotion under such scheme should not have been granted with effect from 1.7.2003 to those selected candidates. 17. This contention has to be repelled on two counts, first that the order dated October 17, 2005 has not been challenged and second that when the AMPS scheme has been approved, it has recorded that it shall come into force on October 18l, 2000, so grant of notional promotion with effect from 1 7.2003 in terms of the scheme in the selection process of 2005 was permissible. 18. So far as the prayer vis-a-vis determination of period of suspension of the petitioner is concerned, same as per Rule 31 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules has not to await final results of the criminal case pending before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar but, however, it was rightly pointed out by learned counsel Mr. Magray that the decision vis-a-vis period of suspension has to be taken by the General Administration Department because reinstatement of the petitioner is in view of the Govt. order No.114-GAD of 2003 dated 21.1.2003 which contained the condition that the suspension period shall be decided separately. Since GAD is not a party, therefore, no direction can be issued against them. 19. The submission has substance; however, it shall be open for the GAD to decide the period of suspension strictly in accordance with service rules applicable within a period of six weeks. 20. Viewed thus, petition is found to be misconceived, as such, dismissed. All connected CMPs shall also stand dismissed.