B.K. Sharma, J. - The two petitioners involved in this two writ petitions are aspirants for promotion to the posts of Assistant Professor in the respec­tive departments in the Regional Dental Col­lege (RDC). Presently they are holding the posts of Demonstrator/Resident Surgeon. They are aggrieved by application of the par­ticular requirement for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor, which according to them is not applicable in respect of the posts to which they have claimed promotion. Be it stated here that the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2276/2010 is working in the Department of Prosthodontics, while the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2278/2010 is working in the Department of Orthodontics. Since the issue raised and the basic facts involved in both the writ peti­tions are one and the same, they are being heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The writ petition being WP(C) No. 2276/2010 hav­ing been exclusively referred to by the learned counsel for the parties to bring home their point of argument, the said writ petition has been taken as the base case. 2. While the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2276/2010 was appointed with effect from 5.9.1989 pursuant to her selection by the APSC, the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2278/ 2010 was appointed with effect from 7.7.1999. As stated above their grievance is one and the same i.e. alleged denial of pro­motion to the post of Assistant Professor. Al­though their case for promotion was consid­ered by the Departmental Promotional Com­mittee (DPC), but they could not be recom­mended for promotion as they do not have required experience i.e. 4 years of teaching experience after post graduation, which they obtained in May, 2009. It is this finding of the DPC, the petitioners have opposed in the writ petitions on the ground that such requirement of 4 years of teaching experience after post graduation is not applicable to the case of the petitioners and thus the same having been wrongly applied, they have been deprived of their legitimate promotions even after rendering more than 20 years and 10 years of ser­vice respectively. 3. According to the petitioners, in the RDC there is four tire system of staffing pattern in the academic field which are Professor, Reader (now Associate Professor), Lecturer (now Assistant Professor) and Tutor (equiva­lent to Demonstrator /Resident Surgeon/ House Surgeon/Registrar etc.). 3. According to the petitioners, in the RDC there is four tire system of staffing pattern in the academic field which are Professor, Reader (now Associate Professor), Lecturer (now Assistant Professor) and Tutor (equiva­lent to Demonstrator /Resident Surgeon/ House Surgeon/Registrar etc.). In this con­nection, they have placed reliance on the no­tification dated 25.7.2007 published in the official gazette vide notification dated 10.9.2007 as well as the notification dated 29.1.2001 published by the Government of Assam in the Finance (Pay and Research Department). They have also placed reliance on the Medical Council of India Regulation, 1998. 4. As per the aforesaid notification dated 25.7/10.9.2007, the minimum basic qualifi­cation and teaching experience required for teachers for under-Graduate Dental Studies are as follows: "Minimum basic qualification and teaching experience required for teachers for Under-Graduate Dental Studies. (A) Dental Staff: Principal/Dean: Same qualifications as prescribed for a Professor. Experience as pro­fessor for not less than 5 years in a Dental Institution. Professors: A BDS Degree of an Indian Univer­sity or an equivalent qualification with Post-graduate qualification/Diplo­mat of National Board in the subject and with 5 years teaching experience as Reader. Readers: A BDS Degree of an Indian Univer­sity or an equivalent qualification with Post-graduate qualification/ Diplomat of National Board in the subject and with 4 years teaching ex­perience after post-graduation. Lecturers: A recognised MDS Degree of an In­dian University/Diplomat of National Board or an equivalent qualification. Tutors : A recognised BDS Degree of Indian University or an equivalent qualifi­cation with at least one years experi­ence. Note: In case of individuals with discrepancy be­tween teaching experience and the post-gradu­ate qualification, a reference may be made to the Dental Council of India through competent authority for consideration. This is not appli­cable for future entrants. 5. As per the aforesaid Finance Depart­ment's notification dated 29.1.2001 issued under Article 309 of the Constitution of In­dia, the Governor of Assam has extended the benefit of revised AICTE Pay Scales to the teachers of the RDC and the teachers of the Dental Wings of the Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh and Silchar Medical College of the State with effect from 1.1.1996 as specified below: Name of Post Existing state's pay scale Name of the scale AICTE Pay scale No. of posts Principal 3825-5900 Supertime scale 18400-500-22400 1 Vice Principal 3575-5550 Selection grade 16400-450-20900-500-22400 1 Professor 3575-5550 Selection grade 16400-450-20900-500-22400 5 Associate Professor, Dental Wing S.M.C. 3375-5200 Sr. Scale-II 12000-20-18300 1 Asstt. Scale-II 12000-20-18300 1 Asstt. Professor RDC/ Dental Wing AMC/ SMC 3275-5050 Sr. Scale-I 10000-325-15200 8 Resident Surgeon/ Demonstrator/Registrar, RDC/AMC/SMC 1835-4325 Jr. Scale 8000-275-13500 15 6. In the aforesaid notification dated 29.1.2001 it has been stated that promotion to the next higher grade will be regulated by availability of vacancies in the next higher grade (as per sanctioned posts mentioned above) as quoted below: (i) Asstt. Professor: (Senior Scale-I) Only after completion of 6 years of service and ob­taining P.G Degree, Dem­onstrator/Resident Sur­geon may be promoted as Assistant Professor sub­ject to vacancy. (ii) Associate Prof.: Only after completion of 5 years service as Assis­tant Professor and subject to vacancy. (iii) Professor: (Selection Gr.Scale) Only after completion of 4 years service as Asso­ciate Professor or 9 (nine) years of service as Assis­tant Professor. (iv) Principal: (Supertime scale) The prescribed scale would be admissible only on direct requirement to the post of Principal. 3. Further, delinking of the scales from the designation will be implemented as follows : (i) Ateacher in Jr. Scale of Rs.8000-13500/-may be designated as Asstt. Professor (Jun­ior) on completion of 6 years of service if he cannot be promoted to the rank of Asstt. Professor due to non-availability of va­cancy or non-acquisition of requisite quali­fication or for any other reason. (ii) An Asstt. Professor in the Sr. Scale-I of Rs.1 0000-15200/- may be designated as Associate Professor (SS-I) on completion of 5 years of service as Assistant Professor if he cannot be promoted to the rank of As­sociate professor due to non-availability of vacancies or any other reasons. (iii) An Associate Professor Sr. Scale-II of Rs. 12000-18300, may be designated as Professor (Sr. Scale-II) on completion of 4 years of service as Associate Professor if he cannot be promoted to the rank of Pro­fessor due to want of vacancies or any other reasons. NOTE : All such re-designations may be done by the Health and Family Welfare Depart­ment by issue of Notification and the fact that they will continue in their existing scale, would be specifically mentioned in the said notifica­tion. The Department will amend the Service Rules accordingly." 7. Laying down the terms and conditions for granting AICTE Pay Scales, the said no­tification interalia provided that for the pur­pose the minimum qualification and experi­ence would be as prescribed by the Dental Council of India (DCI) from time to time. 8. The Department will amend the Service Rules accordingly." 7. Laying down the terms and conditions for granting AICTE Pay Scales, the said no­tification interalia provided that for the pur­pose the minimum qualification and experi­ence would be as prescribed by the Dental Council of India (DCI) from time to time. 8. The MCI Regulation 1998, while de­scribing the posts of Reader, Lecturer and Tutor also describes the new designation and/ or the alternative designation as Associate Pro-fessor, Assistant Professor and Demonstra­tor/Resident/Registrar respectively. It is in the above context the claim of the petitioners is that in the hierarchy of various posts/cadre which are from Demonstrator to Professor, there are four categories, which are Demon­strator with equivalent grade/post of Resident Surgeon/Registrar/Tutor; Lecturer/Assistant Professor; Reader/Associate Professor and finally Professor. So far as the posts of Prin­cipal and Vice Principal are concerned, they are meant by the eligible and suitable Profes­sors. 9. The petitioners have also referred to the letter dated 24.12.2007 (Annexure-XI) to show that there are vacancies in the cadre of Assistant Professor of Prosthodontia and Orthodontia. The respective case of the peti­tioners for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor was considered by the DPC in its meeting held on 10.11.2009. The DPC while considering their cases for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor, considered the same in the rank of Reader equivalent to As­sociate Professor and while doing so applied the criteria of such promotion one of which is four years teaching experience after post graduation. As the petitioners obtained their post graduation in May, 2009, the DPC opined that the petitioners having lacked in teaching experience offour years after post graduation, they could not be recommended for promotion against the vacancies. 10. It is the above finding of the DPC, which have offended the petitioners as their case is that their cases for promotion ought to have been considered against the vacant posts of Assistant Professor equivalent to Lecturer and not that of Reader which is equivalent to Associate Professor. Be it stated here that as per the aforementioned DCI Regulation of 2007, the requirement for the posts of Lecturer/Assistant Professor is a recognised MDS Degree only with no re­quirement offour years teaching experience after post graduation. Be it stated here that as per the aforementioned DCI Regulation of 2007, the requirement for the posts of Lecturer/Assistant Professor is a recognised MDS Degree only with no re­quirement offour years teaching experience after post graduation. On the other hand, as per the Finance Department's notification dated 29.1.2001 an incumbent in the post of Demonstrator/Resident Surgeon is entitled to get promotion to the post of Assistant Pro­fessor after completion of 6 years of service and obtaining PG Degree. As noticed above, both the petitioners, by now, have rendered more than 20 years and 10 years of service respectively. 11. The petitioners have placed reliance on the Annexure-XV chart indicating the ini­tial posting of the teaching staff of RDC and their subsequent promotions so as to contend that the incumbents working in the post of Registrar/Demonstrator had been promoted as Assistant Professor immediately after ob­taining MDS qualification without insisting for four years of teaching experience after post graduation. In this connection the statements made in paragraphs 18,20,21 and 22 of the writ petition are reproduced below: "18. That the Principal, Regional Dental Col­lege, Guwahati, is also a member of the Depart­mental Promotion Committee. On earlier occa­sion, the people working in the post of Regis­trar/Demonstrator were promoted to the post of Assistant Professor immediately after acquir­ing the MDS qualification. The Principal, Re­gional Dental College, Guwahati, with an ulte­rior motive mislead and convinced the members of the Departmental Promotion Committee that the post of Registrar/Demonstrator is equiva­lent to the post of Assistant Professor only with an intention not to give promotion to the peti­tioner to the post of Assistant Professor. Be­side this, the scale of pay of Demonstrator and Lecturer is also different. It is worth mentioning here that on earlier occasions, promotions were made to the post of Assistant Professor from the post of Registrar/Demonstrator after acquir­ing the MDS degree in Regional Dental Col­lege, Guwahati. The Principal himself also got the promotion to the post of Assistant Profes­sor from the post of Demonstrator in a routine manner and all the Assistant Professor and Pro­fessors were promoted from the post of Dem­onstrator after acquiring the MDS qualification. So, it is clear case of discrimination only to deny the legitimate right of the petitioner. The Principal himself also got the promotion to the post of Assistant Profes­sor from the post of Demonstrator in a routine manner and all the Assistant Professor and Pro­fessors were promoted from the post of Dem­onstrator after acquiring the MDS qualification. So, it is clear case of discrimination only to deny the legitimate right of the petitioner. The present petitioner had applied under the provisions of Right to Information Act and collected the date related to the initial posting of the teaching staff of Regional Dental College, Guwahati and their subsequent promotion(s). A chart disclosing date of initial posting of the teaching staff of Regional Dental College, Guwahati and their subsequent promotion(s) is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-XV. 20. That in the year 2009, one Dr. Dipanjal Saikia also obtained MDS degree from Regional Dental College, Guwahati in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery along with the petitioner in the same year. His case was considered by the Depart­mental Promotion Committee for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor in the meeting held on 1.9.09 and the Departmental Promotion Committee has recommended the name of Dr. Dipanjal Saikia for promotion to the post of As­sistant Professor in the Dentistry. As such, it is a clear case of discrimination in not consider­ing the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor. Copy of the pass certificate of MDS of Dr. Dipanjal Saikia and copies of the minutes of the meeting held on 1.9.09 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-XVI and Annexure-XVII respectively. 21. That, at present, there are four persons working as Registrar/Demonstrator/Tutor in the Department of Prosthodontics Regional Dental College, Guwahati. Among these four persons, the present petitioner and Dr. J. Barman has acquired the MDS degree, which is the mini­mum qualification required for the post of As­sistant Professor/Lecturer as per Dental Coun­cil of India rules. Dr. J. Barman joined Regional Dental College, Guwahati on 9.8.2007 as Dem­onstrator/Tutor in the Department of Prosth­odontics, Regional Dental College, Guwahati. But the present petitioner has joined as Regis­trar/Tutor in the Department of Prosthodontics Regional Dental College, Guwahati on 5.9.1989 as per the judgment and order passed by this Hon'ble High Court in Civil Rule No. 2349/90 and in Review Application No. 15/92. But the present petitioner has joined as Regis­trar/Tutor in the Department of Prosthodontics Regional Dental College, Guwahati on 5.9.1989 as per the judgment and order passed by this Hon'ble High Court in Civil Rule No. 2349/90 and in Review Application No. 15/92. The crite­ria for promotion is qualification along with se­niority and the present petitioner not only pos­sess the required qualification for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor/Lecturer in the Department of Prosthodontics, Regional Den­tal College, Guwahati but she is also the most senior Registrar/Tutor having the requisite qualification for promotion to the post of As­sistant Professor/Lecturer in the Department of Prosthodontics, Regional Dental College, Guwahati. Presently, there are two posts of As­sistant Professor lying vacant in the Depart­ment of Prosthodontics and the petitioner should be promoted to that post considering her seniority and eligibility. But the petitioner's valuable right for promotion was denied by the Departmental Promotion Committee on the ba­sis of the misinterpretation of the principal, Re­gional Dental College, Guwahati. A copy of the appointment letter dated 7.8.2007, whereby Dr. J. Barman joined in the Department of Prosthodontics, regional Dental College, Guwahati as Demonstrator/Tutor and copy of the appointment letter dated 8.12.1992, whereby the present petitioner joined in the De­partment of Prosthodontics, regional Dental College, Guwahati as Demonstrator/Tutor w.e.f. 5.9.1989 are annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-XVIII and Annexure-XIX. 22. That the State Government also issued a notification in the name of Secretary, Finance granting All India Council for Technical Educa­tion (AICTE) scales to the teachers of Regional Dental College, Guwahati and prescribed the minimum qualification for promotion to differ­ent posts. As per the All India Council for Tech­nical Education (AICTE) rules also there is four tier system of teaching staff in every depart­ment, which are: Professor and Head of the Department Associate Professor/Reader Assistant Professor/Lecturer Tutor/Demonstrator But the Principal, Regional Dental College, Guwahati, with an intention to deny promotion to the eligible candidate, mislead the members of the Departmental Promotion Committee showing the post of Reader as equivalent to the post of Assistant Professor. But it is already established that the post of Assistant Profes­sor is equivalent to Lecturer and not Reader. The post of Assistant Professor is equivalent to Lecturer in all academic/professional institu­tions including Universities and the post of Associate professor is equivalent to reader. But it is already established that the post of Assistant Profes­sor is equivalent to Lecturer and not Reader. The post of Assistant Professor is equivalent to Lecturer in all academic/professional institu­tions including Universities and the post of Associate professor is equivalent to reader. But the misinterpretation of the Principal, Regional Dental College, Guwahati, bid goodbye to the rules of the Dental Council of India, of the 4 tier system of teaching staff. It is a clear case of discrimination only to deny the valuable right to the petitioner to consider her case for promo­tion. On earlier occasion, the persons holding the post of Registrar/Demonstrator were pro­moted to the post of Assistant Professor after acquiring the MDS degree subject to vacancy. But, by showing the post of Reader as equiva­lent to the post of Assistant Professor, the Prin­cipal, regional Dental College, Guwahati, mis­lead the members of the Departmental Promo­tion Committee stating that 4 years teaching experience is required for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor though same is actually required for Associate Professor." 12. The respondents have filed their counter affidavits, to which the petitioners have filed their reply affidavits. In the sepa­rate affidavits filed by the respondent No. 1 and 3, the basic ground urged resisting the claim of the petitioner is that in the RDC there is three tier system of different categories of post and not four tier system as has been claimed by the petitioners. Referring to the BDS Course regulation of 1983, it has been contended by the said respondents that there is only three tier system of uniform designa­tions of Dental teachers throughout India in all Dental Institutions, which are Professor, Reader and Lecturer, hi this connection they have also referred to the revised MDS Course Regulations of 2007. 13. In the reply affidavits filed by the peti­tioners, they have reiterated their stand in the writ petitions. The basic thrust is that it is in­correct to say that in the prevailing sytem of the staffing pattern of teachers there is a three tier system, hi this connection, they have spe­cifically referred to the cases of Dr. A.C. Bhuiyan, Dr. Pronoy Kr. Sharma, Dr. Chandana Kalita and Dr. Ruby Kotoky. While it is their case that Dr. Bhuiyan is holding the post of Professor on being promoted from the post of Associate Professor, Dr. Sharma, Dr. Kalita and Dr. A.C. Bhuiyan, Dr. Pronoy Kr. Sharma, Dr. Chandana Kalita and Dr. Ruby Kotoky. While it is their case that Dr. Bhuiyan is holding the post of Professor on being promoted from the post of Associate Professor, Dr. Sharma, Dr. Kalita and Dr. Kotoky are holding the post of Associate Professor, Assistant Pro­fessor and Assistant Professor respectively. These instances have been referred to, to show that there are four tier system of cat­egories of posts inclusive of the post of As­sociate Professor, which post, according to the respondents, is not in existence in the RDC. 14. Another significant contention raised by the petitioners is that one Dr. D. Saikia was promoted to the post of Assistant Pro­fessor as per recommendation of the DPC meeting held on 15.9.2009 although, he has obtained MDS Degree in June, 2009 and thus did not have four years of teaching experi­ence after post graduation, hi this connection the petitioners have also furnished the ex­amples of Dr. A.K. Adhyapak, Dr. P.N. Sarma, Dr. A.C. Bhuiyan, Dr. S.J. Das, Dr. Mitali Bora, Dr. B.K. Roy and Dr. C. Kalita, who had been promoted to the posts of As­sistant Professor after 1 year 11 months, 1 year, 2 years 8 months, 1 year 11 months, 1 year, 2 years and 2 years respectively after obtaining MDS Degree and thus in their cases four years of teaching experience after MDS was not insisted upon. 15. During the pendency of the writ pro­ceeding, the respondent No.4 got impleaded in WP(C) No. 2276/2010. Like wise, re­spondents No.4 and 5 got impleaded in WP(C) No. 2278/2010. The respondent No.4 in WP(C) No.2276/2010 was initially appointed as Dental Surgeon under the es­tablishment of Health Services vide notifica­tion dated 1.9.1994 and thereafter was tem­porarily attached to the RDC by notification dated 22.2.2006. He was transferred and posted as Demonstrator of Prosthodontics, RDC vide notification dated 7.8.2007 and finally he was appointed as such by notifica­tion dated 18.2.2008 on being selected for such appointment by the APSC. Thus he is a regular incumbent in the post of Demonstra­tor, RDC from the date of regular appoint­ment on 18.2.2008 and by far junior to the petitioner in WP(C)No. 2276/2010. Thus he is a regular incumbent in the post of Demonstra­tor, RDC from the date of regular appoint­ment on 18.2.2008 and by far junior to the petitioner in WP(C)No. 2276/2010. His case is that he having completed his post gradua­tion in September, 2005 from Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Karnataka and the petitioner having obtained post gradua­tion only in May, 2009, he is a better candi­date for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor, if at all the plea of the petitioner is accepted. However, like that of the official respondents, it is his contention that the DPC has rightly considered the case of the petitioners for the post of Assistant Professor equivalent to Reader in the three tier system of categories of posts. 16. So far as the respondents No.4 and 5 involved in WP(C)No. 2278/2010 are con­cerned, it is the respondent No.4, who alone has filed an affidavit-in-opposition, which re­veals that his stand is same as that of the re­spondent No.4 in the other writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 2276/.2010 referred for above. He-was appointed as Demonstrator, RDC by notification dated 1.8.2007 under Regulation 3(f) of the APSC (Limitation offunctions) Regulation 1951. He has been regularly ap­pointed vide notification dated 25.8.2009 pursuant to his selection by the APSC. Thus, he is also by far junior to the petitioner, but as in the case of the respondent No.4 in the other writ petition, his case is also that he is a better candidate than the petitioner he having ob­tained his Masters Degree in September, 2007 from Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sci­ences, Karnataka as against obtaining the post graduation by the petitioner in May, 2009. Be it stated here that the petitioners in both the writ petitions have obtained their post graduation under Gauhati University. 17. In the additional affidavit filed on 14.9.2010 by the respondent No.1, while reiterating the stand in the earlier affidavit filed, it has been stated that the DCI has negated the plea of relaxation of teaching experience after post graduation for promotion of the petitioners. In the said affidavit, it has been admitted that the petitioners are senior-most in the rank of Registrar as per the gradation list. It has also been brought on record that the DCI on an earlier occasion rejected the plea of relaxation of teaching experience af­ter PG Degree in respect of one Dr. In the said affidavit, it has been admitted that the petitioners are senior-most in the rank of Registrar as per the gradation list. It has also been brought on record that the DCI on an earlier occasion rejected the plea of relaxation of teaching experience af­ter PG Degree in respect of one Dr. A.B. Hussain, who was sought to be promoted to the post of Assistant Professor although he did not have four years of teaching experi­ence after PG Degree. 18. On the other hand, the petitioners have filed an additional affidavit on 14.9.2010 bringing on record the notification dated 28.6.2010 issued by the Government of Assam in the Finance (Pay Research Unit) Department, by which the State Government has extended the benefit of AICTE/UGC Pay Scale to the teachers of Technical Institutions including the RDC, in which different posts of teaching staff have been indicated as Prin­cipal, Vice Principal Professor, Associate Pro­fessor, Assistant Professor and Resident Phy­sician/Resident Surgeon/Registrar/Demon­strator. The petitioners have also brought on record the advertisement dated 17.7.2010 issued by the Regional Institute of Medical Sciences, Imphal, an autonomous Institute under the Ministry of Health & Family Wel­fare, Government of India inviting candidatures for the posts of Professor, Reader/Associate Professor and Lecturer/ Assistant Professor. While laying down the qualification and experience in the advertise­ment for the post of Lecturer/Assistant Pro­fessor, same has been indicated as a recognised MDS Degree. It is only in respect of the post of Reader/Associate Professor, the qualification insisted upon is that of a BDS Degree with post graduate qualification and four years teaching experience after post graduation. 19. I have heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. D. Saikia, learned Standing Counsel, Health. I have also heard Mr. U. Bhuiyan, learned Sr. Counsel representing the private respondents. During the course of hearing they referred to the entire pleadings and the documents to bring home their respective points of arguments. Noticing the particular stand of the official respondents that there is only three tier system of uniform designations of Dental Teachers i.e. Professor, Reader and Lecturer and that under the said system the post of Demonstrator and Lecturer are equivalent in rank and status, a direction was issued on 30.9.2010 to furnish information as to whether the posts of Demonstrator and Lec­turer carry the same pay scale. In the order, it was noted that as per Annexure-IX notifica­tion dated 29.1.2001, while the post of Dem­onstrator carried the pay scale of Rs. 1835-4325/- (pre-revised)/8000-13,500/- (re­vised) and that of Assistant Professor Rs.3275-5000/- (pre-revised)/l 0,000-15,2007-(revised). 20. In response to the said order, the re­spondent No. 1 has filed an affidavit on 12.10.2010 in which it has been stated the four tier hierarchy offaculties like Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor and Demonstrator/Registrar are created in the various departments of the Medical Colleges of Assam including the Dentist Department (Dental Wing) of the Assam Medical College and Silchar Medical College as per MCI Regulation. However, in case offaculties of RDC, Guwahati the three tier hierarchy offaculties like Professor, Assistant Professor and Demonstrator/Resident Surgeon have been adopted as per the aforementioned DCI Regulation of 1983. In the said affidavit, the respondent No. 1 has also referred to the no­tification dated 28.6.2010 issued by the Gov­ernment of Assam in the Finance (Pay Re­search Unit) Department which has also been brought on record by the petitioners in the affidavit filed on 14.9.2010 and referred to above. 21. The particular stand of the petitioners in paragraphs 18, 20, 21 and 22 has been noted above, to which there is no specific denial on the part of the official respondents. In the counter affidavit filed by the respon­dent No. 3, the said paragraphs have been dealt with as follows: "13. That as regards to the statements made in paragraph 18 of the writ petition, the depo­nent begs to state that the Dental Council of India (DCI) regulation is followed in the Regional Dental College and not the Medical Council of India (MCI) regulations. In Regional Dental College, the post of tutor and Associate Pro­fessor never existed. The entry level post in Regional Dental College is Demonstrator/Reg­istrar/Resident Surgeon as stated in the above paragraph. Further in order to be promoted to the next higher post, from the post of Demonstrator/Reg­istrar/Resident Surgeon, the candidate has to acquire teaching experience of 3 years (revised 4 years) after acquiring his/her post graduation qualification (MDS). The petitioner passed her MDS in May, 2009 only. So her name was not recommended for promotion by the Departmen­tal Promotion Committee, because she has not yet completed 4 years of teaching after pass­ing her MDS. 15. The petitioner passed her MDS in May, 2009 only. So her name was not recommended for promotion by the Departmen­tal Promotion Committee, because she has not yet completed 4 years of teaching after pass­ing her MDS. 15. That as regards to the statements made in paragraph 20 of the writ petition, the depo­nent begs to state that the decision/decisions taken by the Departmental Promotion Commit­tee is/are collective decisions. 16. That as regards to the statements made in paragraph 21 of the writ petition, the depo­nent has no comments to offer. 17. That as regards to the statements made in paragraph 22 of the writ petition, the depo­nent begs to state that the seniority in the re­spective departments for promotion to the next higher post of Assistant Professor/Reader from Demonstrator/Registrar/Resident Surgeon/Lec­turer is counted from the date of acquiring MDS degree by the candidates. The person has to complete 3 years (revised 4 years) experience after the date of acquiring P.G (MDS) degree to be considered eligible to become Assistant Pro­fessor/Reader." 22. Like wise in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No. 1, the aforementioned paragraphs have been dealt with as follows: "13. That as regards to the statements made in paragraph 18 of the writ petition, the depo­nent begs to state that the interpretation of the petitioner regarding the equivalency of post of Reader as Associate Professor and post of Lec­turer as Assistant Professor is erroneous as stated in paragraph 8 of this affidavit. The peti­tioner is holding the post of Resident Surgeon in Dentistry since 1999 and passed her MDS in May, 2009. As a post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Orthodontics is lying vacant the Selection Committee considered the incum­bents in the rank of Resident Surgeon/Demon­strator in that Department for promotion to the next higher rank i.e. Assistant Professor. How­ever, as both the incumbents have not fulfilled the criteria for promotion to the post of Assis­tant Professor, the Selection Committee could not recommended any names for promotion to fill up the vacancy. 15. That as regards to the statements made in paragraph 20 of the writ petition, the depo­nent begs to deny the same. 16. That as regards to the statements made in paragraph 21 of the writ petition, the depo­nent begs to state that Dr. D. Saikia who was working as Registrar of Dentistry at Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh. 15. That as regards to the statements made in paragraph 20 of the writ petition, the depo­nent begs to deny the same. 16. That as regards to the statements made in paragraph 21 of the writ petition, the depo­nent begs to state that Dr. D. Saikia who was working as Registrar of Dentistry at Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh. The Dental Wing/ Department in the Medical Colleges is regulated as per the Medical Council of India guidelines for Dentistry Wing/Department of the Medical Colleges and such faculties are within the es­tablishment of the Faculties of the Medical Col­leges as per Assam Medical Education Service Rules, 2008, whereas the different Departments and the Faculties of the Regional Dental Col­lege, Guwahati are as per the Dental Council of India guidelines. Dr. Saikia belongs to Assam Medical Education Service which follows the guidelines framed by the Medical Council of India. Hence, it is stated that Dr. Saikia does not belong to the cadre of regional Dental College. 17. That as regards to the statements made in paragraph 22 of the writ petition, the depo­nent begs to state that the Departmental Selec­tion Committee for promotion considered 4(four) incumbents in the Department of Prosthodontics including the petitioner and recognised the petitioner as the senior most in the Gradation List. However, as all the incumbents did not fulfilled the requisite criteria, (i.e. 4(four) years of teaching experience after Post Graduation) the Committee could not recommend anyone for promotion to fill up the vacant post of As­sistant Professor. Thereafter, the Government in the Health Department, as per the advice of the selection committee, moved the Dental Council of India to accord relaxation as special case of the doctors vide its letter No. HLB.271/ 2009/164 dated 21.6.10. In response to the said letter dated 21.6.10, the Dental Council of India vide letter No. DE-14-2010/A-4287 dated27.7.10 replied in negative by quoting the relevant por­tion of the MDS Course Regulation, 2007 wherein the qualification for the post of Reader/ Assistant Professor is prescribed as post graduation with four years teaching experience after post graduation." 23. In response to the said letter dated 21.6.10, the Dental Council of India vide letter No. DE-14-2010/A-4287 dated27.7.10 replied in negative by quoting the relevant por­tion of the MDS Course Regulation, 2007 wherein the qualification for the post of Reader/ Assistant Professor is prescribed as post graduation with four years teaching experience after post graduation." 23. While dealing with the stand of the pe­titioner in paragraph 19 of the writ petition, which is that the respondent No.3 with an ul­terior motive to accomodate some of his in­terested persons denied promotion to the petitioners misleading the members of the DPC inspite of earlier instances of such pro­motion, the respondent No. 1 in his affidavit has stated thus: "14. That as regards to the statements made in paragraph 19 of the writ petition, the depo­nent begs to deny the same and furhter begs to state that Dr. P.D. Bora, present Principal, Re­gional Dental College, Guwahati completed MDS in the December, 1977 and was promoted in September, 1982 i.e. more than 4 years after MDS. Further, at that time Dental Council of India Regulation of 1983 was not applicable. Later there was exception in certain cases of promotion to the Dental Council of India norms. The Dental Council of India on their subsequent inspections did not raise objections in such ex­ceptional cases. However, subsequently in case of promotion of Dr. A.B. Hussain to the post of Assistant Professor, the Dental Council of In­dia vide letter DE-16-2006/3845 dated 2.6.06 stated that there is no provision in the Dental Council of India Regulation to condone/relax the minimum teaching experience as required for the post of Assistant Professor for teaching Dentistry in the country. Accordingly, the pro­motion order of Dr. A.B. Hussain was cancelled vide this office order No. HLB.79/2003/Pt-II'22 dated 16.1.2006. Further, it is relevant to submit that except in the aforesaid cases not a single faculty has been promoted in contradiction to the Dental Council of India Guidelines." 24. On a total reading of the stand of the respondent No. 1 in paragraph 14 and 16 re­ferred to above what is clear is that it has been admitted that there was exception in certain cases of promotion contrary to the DCI norms, to which the DCI never raised any objection. It was only in the case of Dr. On a total reading of the stand of the respondent No. 1 in paragraph 14 and 16 re­ferred to above what is clear is that it has been admitted that there was exception in certain cases of promotion contrary to the DCI norms, to which the DCI never raised any objection. It was only in the case of Dr. A.B. Hussain, the DCI took the stand that there is no provision in the DCI Regulation to con­done/relax the rninirnurn teaching experience as required for the post of Assistant Profes­sor. As regards the case of Dr. D. Saikia, it has been stated that he being a Registrar of Dentistry, Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh, his case is regulated by MCI Regulation and accordingly, he could be promoted even be­fore gaining four years expereicne after ob­taining PG Degree. 25. From the above, the stand of the re­spondents as has been revealed from their counter affidavits is that, incumbents from RDC, Guwahati can be transferred to Assam Medical College and Silchar Medical Col­lege and vice-a-versa and that the same in­cumbents while posted at RDC, Guwahati shall be governed by DCI Regulation but on being transferred to said Medical Colleges shall be governed by MCI Regulations. Same will be the case in respect of the incumbents transferred from Medical Colleges to RDC. Thus, here is a case an incumbent while posted at Medical Colleges will be governed by MCI Regulations and four tier system of categories of posts, but on the other hand will be governed by DCI Regulation and three tier system of category of post while posted at RDC, Guwahati. If one is posted at RDC, Guwahati, to earn promotion to the post of Assistant Professor, he will have to have four years of teaching experience after obtaining PG Degree, but if posted on transfer to one of the Medical Colleges, he will be governed by MCI Regulations, in which no such teach­ing experience will be insisted upon. Thus an incumbent working in RDC, Guwahati if can manage his transfer to the Dental Wing of any one of the Medical Colleges in Assam he can earn his promotion dehorse the DCI Regula­tion and after getting such promotion can again come back to RDC, Guwahati. Thus here is a case in which a teaching staff is gov­erned by two sets of regulations depending upon his transfer and posting. Thus here is a case in which a teaching staff is gov­erned by two sets of regulations depending upon his transfer and posting. If he/she is posted in the Medical Colleges, he/she is an advantageous position than the incumbent posted in RDC, Guwahati. This certainly gives rise to an anomalous situation. 26. According to the respondents it is only three tier system, which is prevalent in the RDC. In this connection, they have referred to the BDS Course Regulation, 1983, which provides for three tier system of uniform des­ignation of Dental Teachers. However, the note appended to the said regulation itself pro­vides that each department should be headed by a Professor, but in case persons with req­uisite qualifications etc. are not available, then a provisional post of Associate Professor be considered adequate to head the department to tied over the difficulty and that the post be upgraded to that of a professor as and when the incumbent attains the qualification pre­scribed by the DCI. By now, long 27 years have passed by and as the common experience goes not in all the Colleges and Univer­sities, the erstwhile Lecturers, Readers and Professors are knwon as Assistant Profes­sor, Associate Professor and Professor. Even in DCI Regulation, 2007 the four tier system in the hierarchy has been recognised while mentioning the posts of Tutor, Lecturer, Reader and Professor. 27. Upon a reference to the MCI Regula­tion of 1998, it is the stand of the petitioners that the posts of Tutor is equivalent to Demonstrator/Resident/Registrar. The stand of the petitioners is that their case is required to be considered for the post of Lecturer equiva­lent to Assistant Professor and not that of Reader equivalent to Associate Professor. If their case is considered for promotion to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor, than there is no question of insisting for four years teaching experience after post graduation as is required for the post of Reader equivalent to Associate Professor. 28. The petitioners have also referred to the Annexure-III gradation list dated 12.1.2006, in which the names of various in­cumbents including that of the respondent No.3 figure. In the said gradation list, there are incumbents holding the post of Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor and Demonstrator about which mention has also been made above. 28. The petitioners have also referred to the Annexure-III gradation list dated 12.1.2006, in which the names of various in­cumbents including that of the respondent No.3 figure. In the said gradation list, there are incumbents holding the post of Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor and Demonstrator about which mention has also been made above. If there is no post of As­sociate Pofessor in the RDC, Guwahati, it is not understood as to how the incumbents named in the said gradation list could hold the post of Associate Professor to which post promotion was made after the DCI Regula­tion of 1983. Instances with names have been referred to above. 29. Another significant fact which cannot lost sight is the Annexure-IX notification dated 29.1.2001 issued by the Government of Assam in the Finance (Pay and Research Unit) Department by which the benefit of 1996 re­vised AICTE pay scale to the teachers of the Dental Wing of the Medical Colleges and the Regional Dental College have been extended. Relevant portion of the said notification has been quoted above. The said notification has been issued under Article 309 of the Consti­tution of India indicating the posts of Resi­dent Surgeon/Demonstrator/Registrar, Assis­tant Professor, Associate Professor and Pro­fessor mentioning the pre-revised and revised pay scales against each post. Admittedly the post of Demonstrator is in the lower pay scale i.e. 8000-13500/- (Revised) than that of the post of Assistant Professor, which is 10,000-15200/- (Revised). Laying down the requi­site criteria for promotion to the post of As­sistant Professor, the requirement has been laid down to be 6 years of service and post graduate degree, which both the petitioners do possess. The notification also provides de­linking of the scales from the designation as per which a teacher in junior scale of Rs.8000-13 500/- may be designated as Assistant Pro­fessor on completion of 6 years of service if he cannot be promoted as such due to no availability of vacancy. The notification fur­ther says that the Department shall amend the Service Rules accordingly. 30. As noticed above, the claim of the pe­titioners is for promotion to the post of Assis­tant Professor and not that of Reader. But the DPC in its meeting held on 10.11.2009 considered the respective case of the peti­tioners for promotion to the post of Lecturer/ Assistant Professor as that of Reader/Assis­tant Professor which is equivalent to re-des­ignated post of Associate Professor. 31. But the DPC in its meeting held on 10.11.2009 considered the respective case of the peti­tioners for promotion to the post of Lecturer/ Assistant Professor as that of Reader/Assis­tant Professor which is equivalent to re-des­ignated post of Associate Professor. 31. Even in the notification dated 28.6.2010 (Annexure-I to the additional affidavit filed by the petitioners), the Govern­ment of Assam in the Finance (Pay and Re­search Unit) Department has recognised 4 tier system in the hierarchy of posts in the Re­gional Dental College, which are Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Professor and Resident Surgeon/Demonstrator/Registrar. In the said notification, the pre-revised pay scale attached to the post of Resident Surgeon/ Demonstrator/Registrar has been indicated as 8000-13500/- and that of Assistant Profes­sor as 10000-15200/-. 32. As noticed above, the Regional Insti­tute of Medical Sciences, Imphal which is under the Ministry of Health and Family Wel­fare, Government of India has issued employ­ment notice dated 17.7.2010 for the posts of Professor, Associate Professor, Assistant Pro­fessor in the Department of Prosthodontics. As per the said advertisement, the qualifica­tion for the post of Assistant Professor is a recognised MDS degree. It is only in respect of the post of Associate Professor the expe­rience of 4 years after post graduate degree as has been insisted upon. This employment notice has been brought on record by the learned counsel for the petitioners to bring home the point of argument that in fact the post of Associate Professor is in existence. It will be pertinent to mention here that in the advertisement, the post of Associate Profes­sor and Assistant Professor have been equated with that of Reader and Lecturer. The claim of the petitioners is to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Professor of Prosthodon­tics and Orthodontics respectively for which posts there is no requirement of having 4 years experience after post graduation. 33. It is in the aforesaid background, this Court by the aforesaid order dated 30.9.2010 directing the respondents to clarify their stand on equivalence of the post of Demonstrator and Lecturer and as to whether the posts carry the same pay scale. The clarifica­tion furnished vide affidavit filed OH 12.10.2010 is only the reiteration of the ear­lier stand in the counter affidavits and does not through any light as to the equivalence of the posts of Demonstrator and Lecturer/As­sistant Professor. The clarifica­tion furnished vide affidavit filed OH 12.10.2010 is only the reiteration of the ear­lier stand in the counter affidavits and does not through any light as to the equivalence of the posts of Demonstrator and Lecturer/As­sistant Professor. However, one thing has been admitted that the posts of Demonstra­tor is equivalent to that of Tutor and reluc­tantly it cannot be said that the petitioners are not entitled to get consideration for promo­tion to the post of Lecturer/Assistant Profes­sor. The DPC committed a manifest error offact and law in considering the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of As­sistant Professor (Reader), which is a step further than the post of Assistant Professor (Lecturer) to which posts both the petitioner have stacked their claim. 34. As regards the plea of the respondents that the DCI, declined to extend any relax­ation to the case of the petitioners as well as said Dr. A.B. Hussain, so far as the require­ment of 4 years teaching experience after PG is concerned, suffice is to say that such rejec­tion was natural as the case was projected to be a case as projected in the counter affida­vits without highlighting the above aspects of the matter. The DPC also considered the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Reader (Assistant Professor) and not to the post of Lecturer (Assistant Professor). 35. Coming to the case of the private re­spondents, it is not understood as to what for they have impleaded themselves as party re­spondents. They have only supported the case of the official respondents but at the same time have contended that in the event of consider­ation of the case of the petitioners for pro­motion to the posts of Assistant Professor on the basis of the claim made by the petitioners, they have a better right, they having ob­tained PG Degree ahead of the petitioners. Merely because they have obtained their PG Degree from an Institute outside the State of Assam about which the learned counsel for the petitioners has also put a question mark, they cannot ignore the fact that the petition­ers are much more senior to them a fact, which has been admitted by the DPC as well as by the official respondents in their counter affidavits. Further, this aspect of the matter need not detain us in view of the finding that the petitioners are entitled to get consider­ation for promotion to the post of Lecturer/ Assistant Professor and it was wrong on the part of the respondents to deny them such promotion by way of considering their cases for promotion to the post of Assistant Pro­fessor/Reader equivalent to that of Associate Professor. 36. In view of the above, both the writ petition are allowed directing the respondents to immediately consider the case of the peti­tioners for promotion to the post of Lecturer/ Assistant Professor consistently with the ob­servations made above. Let the entire exer­cise be carried out as expeditiously as pos­sible but at any rate, not later than 31.12.2010. The respondents will bear in mind that the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2276/ 2010 was put to much difficulty at the very threshold of her service career for which she had to knock successfully the doors of this Court and that both the petitioners even after rendering more than 20 and 10 of years of service respectively are without any promo­tion and have been made to stagnate. 37. Writ petitions are allowed without, however, any order as to costs.