Judgment : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice . The writ petitioners in both the writ petitions have sought the following reliefs amongst others, on the grounds taken in the respective writ petitions: “(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents to reckon the seniority for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor (Super Specialty) from the date a person acquires the qualification as provided in clause 11 of the HP Medical Education Service Rules, 1999 as amended vide notification dated 28/06/2008. (ii) That further a writ in the nature of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents to make promotions to the post of Assistant Professor (Super Specialty) by considering the person by maintaining an order from the date of their attaining the essential qualifications meaning thereby that the person who has attained essential qualification i.e. having a post graduation degree and has attained three years required teaching experience, first he should be considered prior to the persons who have attained this qualification on a later date and by further directing the respondents not to consider the seniority of the person as Medical Officer only for making such promotions.” 2. The identical question of law, rather, interpretation of Clause 11 of H.P. Medical Education Service Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”), as amended vide notification, dated 28th June, 2008, is involved in both the writ petitions, we deem it proper to dispose of both these writ petitions by this common judgment. 3. The writ petitioners in CWP No. 2450 and 3025 of 2014 have completed MBBS in the years 1991 and 1997, came to be appointed in the years 1993 and 1998, have obtained Post Graduate degree in the years 1997 and 2005 in different disciplines, i.e. MD/MS in Obstetrics & Gynaecology and MD in Radio Diagnosis, completed senior residency/registrarship in the years 2001 and 2010, respectively, and entitled for their selection by promotion to the post of Assistant Professor (Super Specialty) from the date(s) they have attained the essential qualification, i.e. the Post Graduate degree. Further, it is averred that they have also attained three years' teaching experience, which is also required. 4. Further, it is averred that they have also attained three years' teaching experience, which is also required. 4. Precisely, the case of the writ petitioners is that they have obtained the Post Graduate degree earlier in point of time, thus, are entitled to selection by promotion to the post of Assistant Professor (Super Specialty) from the said dates and the candidates, who have obtained the Post Graduate degree thereafter, are to be selected/promoted thereafter. 5. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have resisted the writ petitions by filing separate replies, but on similar grounds. It is contended that the post of Assistant Professor is a selection post, is to be filled up on merit-cum-seniority basis and not on the basis of seniority alone. The seniority is to be determined as per the Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “the R&P Rules”) occupying the field. The seniority is not to be determined from the date of obtaining the Post Graduate degree. While making selection by promotion, ACRs of the candidates are to be taken into consideration by the Departmental Promotion Committee read with their assessment and the place in the seniority list. The Rules nowhere provide that an officer, who has obtained the Post Graduate degree at the relevant point of time is to be appointed from that date. 6. Respondent No. 3 in CWP No. 2450 of 2014 has resisted the writ petition on the ground that he is senior to the writ petitioner, was appointed on 2nd September, 1992 and is figuring at serial No. 788 in the seniority list of Medical Officers, dated 5th March, 2001, whereas the writ petitioner is figuring at serial No. 1050. 7. Respondent No. 4 in CWP No. 2450 of 2014 has also resisted the writ petition on the ground that he is senior to the writ petitioner as he was appointed on 28th February, 1991, was regularized on 14th January, 1993 and is figuring at serial No. 266 whereas the writ petitioner is figuring at serial No. 489 in the seniority list of Medical Offices of H.P. Health and Family Welfare Department, as it stood on 1st July, 2008. 8. Further, it is contended that the writ petitioner has not challenged the seniority list and now cannot make a claim for change of seniority list and try to unsettle the position, which has been settled long back. 8. Further, it is contended that the writ petitioner has not challenged the seniority list and now cannot make a claim for change of seniority list and try to unsettle the position, which has been settled long back. It is also contended that the post of Assistant Professor is a selection post, is to be filled up by promotion from amongst the members of H.P. Civil Medical Service (General Wing), having recognized Post Graduate degree and at least three years' teaching experience in the concerned specialty after Post Graduation. The cases of the writ petitioners were not considered by the concerned Authorities for the reason that they were not falling within the zone of consideration for promotion. 9. It is apt to reproduce Rule 11 of the Rules, as amended vide notification, dated 28th June, 2008, herein: “Sr. No. 11. - By appointment (by selection) from amongst the members of H.P. Civil Medical Service (General Wing) having Post Graduate degree and Post Doctoral degree or its equivalent qualifications in the concerned super specialty and possess at least three years teaching experience as Lecturers/ Registrar/Demonstrator/Tutor/Senior Resident/Chief Resident in the concerned specialty after doing Post graduation in the concerned specialty failing which by direct recruitment or on contract basis.” 10. While going through Rule 11 (supra), it is crystal clear that promotion to the post of Assistant Professor is to be made by selection from those officers, who are possessing Post Graduate degree and having three years' teaching experience. The Rule nowhere mandates that the date of obtaining the Post Graduate degree is the relevant factor for determining the eligibility. The consideration zone is of all those officers as per seniority position read with the fact that they possess Post Graduate degree and three years' teaching experience. 11. The Apex Court in a case titled as Union of India & Ors. versus B.S. Darjee & Anr., reported in 2011 AIR SCW 6336, held that for consideration for promotion, a person must not only be eligible but must fall within zone of consideration. It is apt to reproduce para 7 of the judgment herein: “7. 11. The Apex Court in a case titled as Union of India & Ors. versus B.S. Darjee & Anr., reported in 2011 AIR SCW 6336, held that for consideration for promotion, a person must not only be eligible but must fall within zone of consideration. It is apt to reproduce para 7 of the judgment herein: “7. We, therefore, find that although the respondent no.1 was eligible for consideration for promotion to the post of Head Constable having completed ten years of service as Constable, he could not be considered for promotion in the years 1998, 1999 and 2000 on account of his lower position in the seniority list of Constables and Lance Naiks, who had been rationalized as Constables, were considered for promotion because they had been placed above respondent no.1 in the seniority list. The High Court has by impugned order directed consideration of the respondent No.1 for promotion to the post of Head Constable during the years 1998, 1999 and 2000 because it took the view that not only Lance Naiks but also Constables who have put in ten years' service were eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Head Constable. The High Court has failed to appreciate that, for consideration for promotion, a Constable must not only be eligible, but also must come within the zone of consideration and as per the circulars dated 21.01.1998, 07.01.1999 and 08.01.2000 (Annexures P5, P6 and P7 to the Special Leave Petition), the respondent No. 1, though eligible, did not come within the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of Head Constable. The High Court was, therefore, not right in issuing a direction in the impugned order to the appellants to consider respondent no.1 for promotion in the post of Head Constable for the years 1998, 1999 and 2000. (We may mention here that the respondent No.1 has been considered, in the meanwhile, and has been promoted as Head Constable in the year 2000).” 12. Respondent No. 4 in CWP No. 2450 of 2014 was senior, having both qualifications, was falling in the zone of consideration, was considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor by the Departmental Promotion Committee. 13. It is not the case of the writ petitioners that the official respondents/Departmental Promotion Committee has taken into consideration those persons, who were not having the requisite qualifications. 14. 13. It is not the case of the writ petitioners that the official respondents/Departmental Promotion Committee has taken into consideration those persons, who were not having the requisite qualifications. 14. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners that the date of obtaining the Post Graduate degree is crucial, is not correct. 15. The Rules, which were occupying the field at the relevant point of time and are manning the field, are to be taken into consideration. 16. The Apex Court in a case titled as R.B. Desai and another versus S.K. Khanolker and others, reported in (1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases 54, discussed the issue and held that earlier acquisition of eligibility does not give any such priority to the candidates unless Rules specifically provide the same . It is apt to reproduce paras 9 and 10 of the judgment herein: “9. We are unable to agree with this reasoning of the High Court. As noticed above, promotion to the post of AFOs is made from the post of RFOs to the extent of 75% of the vacancies. There is no dispute that both the appellants and the first respondent belong to the cadre of RFOs. The only difference between them being that the appellants were promotees in the said cadre while the first respondent was a direct recruit. It is an accepted principle in service jurisprudence that once persons from difference sources enter a common cadre, their seniority will have to be counted from the date of their continuous officiation in the cadre to which they are appointed. On facts, there is no dispute that the appellants entered the RFO's cadre on a date anterior to that of the first respondent, therefore, in the cadre of RFOs, the appellant are senior to the first respondent. However, to be considered for promotion, the rule required RFOs to acquire the eligibility as provided therein. Therefore, the question for consideration is : can the acquisition of an earlier eligibility give an advantage to the first respondent as against the appellants when an avenue for promotion opens in the cadre of ACFs even though at that point of time the appellants had also acquired the required eligibility? Therefore, the question for consideration is : can the acquisition of an earlier eligibility give an advantage to the first respondent as against the appellants when an avenue for promotion opens in the cadre of ACFs even though at that point of time the appellants had also acquired the required eligibility? We are of the opinion that if at the time of consideration for promotion the candidates concerned have acquired the eligibility, then unless the rule specifically gives an advantage to a candidate with earlier eligibility, the date of seniority should prevail over the date of eligibility. The rule under consideration does not give any such priority to the candidates acquiring earlier eligibility and, in our opinion, rightly so. In service law, seniority has its own weightage and unless and until the rules specifically exclude this weightage of seniority, it is not open to the authorities to ignore the same. 10. The High Court has relief upon the language of Note 1 of the rule to come to the conclusion that the persons with earlier date of eligibility have a weightage over others solely on the basis that the note required the list of eligibility to be maintained on the basis of the date of acquisition of such eligibility, hence eligibility has preference over seniority. Our reading of the said note does not persuade us to give any such preference. If the rule did contemplate such advantage, it would have stated so in specific terms. We also do not see any special objective in giving preference to the date of eligibility as against seniority. Eligibility, of course, has a relevant object but date of acquisition of eligibility, when both competing persons have the eligibility at the time of consideration cannot, in our opinion, make any difference.” 17. The Apex Court in a latest judgment rendered in a case titled as Dr. Purshotam Kumar Kaundal versus State of H.P. and Ors., reported in 2014 AIR SCW 1262, held that the eligibility criterion only requires a recognized Post Graduate degree and those persons are to be taken into consideration who are possessing the said Post Graduate degree. The Apex Court has nowhere held that the date from which the degree is obtained is the date of determining the eligibility. Had that been the intention of the Legislature, then they would have differently provided the criteria accordingly. 18. The Apex Court has nowhere held that the date from which the degree is obtained is the date of determining the eligibility. Had that been the intention of the Legislature, then they would have differently provided the criteria accordingly. 18. The Apex Court in the cases titled as Indian Airlines Ltd. and others versus S. Gopalakrishnan, reported in (2001) 2 Supreme Court Cases 362; Shailendra Dania and others versus S.P. Dubey and others, reported in (2007) 5 Supreme Court Cases 535; and V.K. Naswa versus Home Secretary, Union of India and others, reported in (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 542, has laid down the same principle. It is apt to reproduce paras 9, 11, 16 and 18 of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in V.K. Naswa's case (supra) herein: “9. In Asif Hameed v. State of J&K, 1989 Supp (2) SCC 364: AIR 1989 SC 1899 , this Court while dealing with a case like this at hand observed: (SCC p. 374, para 19) “19. …. While doing so the court must remain within its self-imposed limits. The court sits in judgment on the action of a coordinate branch of the government. While exercising power of judicial review of administrative action, the court is not an appellate authority. The Constitution does not permit the court to direct or advise the executive in matters of policy or to sermonise qua any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of legislature or executive.” (emphasis added) 10. …. 11. Similarly in Ajaib Singh v. Sirhind Coop. Marketing-cum-Processing Service Society Ltd., (1999) Supp (1) SCC 323, this Court held that the court cannot fix a period of limitation, if not fixed by the legislature, as “the courts can admittedly interpret the law and do not make laws”. The court cannot interpret the statutory provision in such a manner “which would amount to legislation intentionally left over by the legislature”. 12. …. 13. …. 14. …. 15. …. 16. In State of U.P. v. Jeet S. Bisht, (2007) 6 SCC 586 , this Court held that issuing any such direction may amount to amendment of law which falls exclusively within the domain of the executive/legislature and the court cannot amend the law. 17. …. 18. Thus, it is crystal clear that the court has a very limited role and in exercise of that, it is not open to have judicial legislation. 17. …. 18. Thus, it is crystal clear that the court has a very limited role and in exercise of that, it is not open to have judicial legislation. Neither the court can legislate, nor has it any competence to issue directions to the legislature to enact the law in a particular manner.” 19. The writ petitioners have not questioned the seniority list, which was published long back and has attained finality. While considering the in-service candidates for promotion on merit-cum- seniority basis against a selection post, those candidates are to be taken into consideration who fall in the zone of consideration as per seniority list read with the requisite qualification. 20. Admittedly, private respondent No. 4 was having the requisite qualification and was falling in the zone of consideration. The writ petitioners in both the writ petitions are not falling in the zone of consideration because they are much juniors and can be considered at the time when they will fall in the zone of consideration. 21. It is also apt to mention herein that even the writ petitioners have not questioned the seniority list in the writ petitions. 22. The writ petitioners have also not questioned Rule 11 of the Rules (supra). 23. This Court cannot issue writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to reckon the seniority for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor (Super Specialty) from the date when a candidate acquires qualifications. This is the job and prerogative of the official respondents and not of this Court. This Court has only interpreted the Rules and as per the Rules, as discussed hereinabove, that a candidate, at the time of falling in the zone of consideration, must have Post Graduate degree alongwith three years teaching experience. 24. Having said so, both the writ petitions deserve dismissal. Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed alongwith all pending applications, if any. Interim directions, if any, are also vacated.