JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Michael Zothankhuma, J. I have heard Mr. P.N. Goswami, counsel appearing for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 1738/2006 and WP(C) No. 3892/2009, Ms. SP Hussain, counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7 (writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 4501/2009) and Mr. S.K. Goswami, counsel appearing for the respondent No. 8 (the writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 5333/2009 and WP(C) No. 2651/2012). I have also heard Mr. S.K. Talukdar, standing counsel for Health Department, Mr. B. Gogoi, standing counsel for Finance Department and Mr. N. Upadhyay, for the State Government. 2. The five writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. 3. The pleadings in respect of W.P.(C) No. 3892 of 2009 are being considered in the present judgment and order for disposal of all the writ petitions. 4. The question in the present case is as to whether the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 could have been promoted to the post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Periodontics in the Regional Dental College, Guwahati and whether the petitioner could have been promoted to the said post from the date the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 were promoted, i.e., on 16-01-2006. 5. In WP(C) No. 1738/2006, the petitioner has challenged the promotion of respondent No. 7 on the ground that the respondent No. 7 did not have the 3 years service after obtaining post-graduate degree as required under the Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) Course Regulations, 1983. The petitioner was, thereafter, appointed as Assistant Professor in Periodontics on 20-02-2009. 6. In WP(C) No. 3892/2009, the petitioner has challenged the promotion of respondent Nos. 7 and 8 and has prayed that she should have been given retrospective promotion w.e.f. the date the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 were promoted, i.e., on 16-01-2006. The petitioner had challenged the appointment of the respondent No. 7 on the ground that he did not have the 3 years service experience after obtaining post-graduate degree and had challenged the appointment of the respondent No. 8 on the ground that the respondent No. 8 was selected on the basis of irrelevant considerations. The petitioner had challenged the appointment of the respondent No. 7 on the ground that he did not have the 3 years service experience after obtaining post-graduate degree and had challenged the appointment of the respondent No. 8 on the ground that the respondent No. 8 was selected on the basis of irrelevant considerations. Vide order dated 21-10-2009 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health and Family Welfare Department, the promotion was given to the petitioner as on the date the respondent No. 8 joined the post of Assistant Professor and also deferred the promotion to Assistant Professor w.e.f. 01-04-2007. 7. The respondent No. 7 filed W.P.(C) No. 4501/2009 challenging the retrospective promotion order dated 21-10-2009 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health and Family Welfare Department, given to the petitioner and also deferred promotion of the respondent No. 7, wherein the respondent No.7's promotion is to be counted w.e.f. 01-04-2007. 8. In W.P.(C) No. 5333/2009, the respondent No. 8 (writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 5333/2009) has challenged the retrospective promotion order dated 21-10-2009 on the ground that the petitioner has been given retrospective promotion without going through the duly constituted DPC and as there was no available vacancy of Assistant Professor of Periodontics w.e.f. 16-01-2006 as the respondent No. 8 had filled the said post. 9. During the proceedings of the above writ petitions, a supernumerary post was created vide notification 23-06-2011 to accommodate the petitioner in pursuance to the retrospective promotion order dated 21-10-2009. Being aggrieved with the creation of the supernumerary post, the respondent No. 8 herein had filed WP(C) No. 2651/2012 challenging the creation of the supernumerary post. 10. The petitioners' counsel submits that as per the Bachelor of Dental Surgery (BDS) Course Regulations, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1983 Regulations) issued by the Dental Council of India, the minimum basic qualification and teaching experience required for teachers of undergraduate and dentist studies is that the said person should have BDS degree from an Indian University or an equivalent qualification with Post-graduate qualification in the subject and 3 years teaching experience as Reader after he gets his post-graduate qualification. It may be stated here that the erstwhile the post of Reader was earlier known as Assistant Professor. 11. It may be stated here that the erstwhile the post of Reader was earlier known as Assistant Professor. 11. The appointment of the petitioner, the respondent No. 7 and the respondent No. 8 as Demonstrator and their dates of obtaining their post-graduate degree is reproduced below: Demonstrator Post-Graduate Degree 1. Petitioner March, 2001 18.01.2001 2. Respondent No. 7 06.10.95 05.03.04 3. Respondent No. 8 05.09.89 January, 02 12. The petitioners' counsel submits that the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 were however promoted to the post of Assistant Professor of Periodontic on the recommendation of the Selection Committee vide notification dated 16-01-2006 under Regulation 4(d) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulation, 1951. 13. The petitioners' counsel submits that though the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 were senior to the petitioner in the feeder post of Demonstrator, the promotion of the respondent No. 7 to Assistant Professor could not have been done on 16-01-2006 as the respondent No. 7 petitioner had not completed 3 years teaching experience as Assistant Professor (Reader) after he get his post-graduate qualification. The petitioners' counsel submits that the respondent No.7 having obtained his master-degree on dental surgery on 05-03-2004, the respondent No. 7 could not have been promoted prior to 05-03-2007. 14. The petitioners' counsel submits that the minutes of the Selection Committee held on 20-05-2005, on the basis of which the respondent No. 8 has been promoted to the post of Assistant Professor, goes to show that the respondent No. 8 was promoted on the basis of order dated 28-06-1995 passed in CR No. 976 of 1992. The petitioners' counsel submits that the order dated 28-06-1995 passed in CR No. 976 of 1992 is to the effect that the respondent No. 8 was to be considered for appointment as Demonstrator/Resident Surgeon by the authority. 15. The petitioners' counsel thus submits that the basis for selection of the respondent No. 8 for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor by the Selection Committee in its minutes dated 20-05-2005 shows that the same is unsustainable as the respondent No. 8 was to be considered for promotion to the feeder post of Demonstrator/Resident Surgeon vide the High Court order and the Selection Committee, on the other hand, has applied the said order for promoting the respondent No. 8 to the post of Assistant Professor. 16. 16. The petitioners' counsel submits that the Selection Committee have purportedly applied the alleged notification dated 29-01-2001 while selecting the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor. The petitioners' counsel submits that the said alleged notification has neither been gazetted nor can it be said to be a Rule to be used for appointment/promotion of an Demonstrator/Resident Surgeon to the post of Assistant Professor. The petitioners' counsel submits that the alleged notification dated 29-01-2001 cannot override the provisions of the 1983 Regulations, which requires that an Assistant Professor should have a post-graduate qualification with 3 years teaching experience as Reader/Assistant Professor. 17. The petitioners' counsel submits that a reading of Entry 25 of List-III of the Seventh Schedule goes to show that Education, including technical education, medical education and universities are subject to the provisions of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I. Entry 66 of List-I relates to Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions. He submits that education was initially in Entry 11 of List-II. However, the same was taken away from Entry-11 of List-II and put in Entry 25 of List-III as per the Constitutional 42nd (Amendment) Act, 1976 w.e.f. 03-01-1977. The petitioners' counsel thus submits that the State Government thus do not have the power to make any Rules with respect to the criteria for promotion as it is not a State subject. He also submits that assuming the alleged notification dated 29-01-2001 is a Rule made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the same cannot override the 1983 Regulations, which has been made under the Dentists Act, 1948 by the Central Government. 18. Mr. S.K. Goswami, counsel appearing for the respondent No. 8 herein (writ petitioner in W.P.(C) Nos. 5333 of 2009 and 2651 of 2012) submits that the respondent No. 8 joined the post of Demonstrator on 05-09-1989, the respondent No. 7 on 10-09-1998 and the petitioner on 15-02-2001. The counsel for respondent No. 8 submits that the alleged notification dated 29-01-2001 is a Rule made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which gives the eligible criteria required for promotion of an Demonstrator/Resident Surgeon to the post of Assistant Professor. 19. The counsel for respondent No. 8 submits that the alleged notification dated 29-01-2001 is a Rule made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which gives the eligible criteria required for promotion of an Demonstrator/Resident Surgeon to the post of Assistant Professor. 19. The counsel for the respondent No. 8 submits that Rule 2(i) of the alleged notification dated 29-01-2001 states that a Demonstrator/Resident Surgeon after having 6 years of service can be promoted to the post of Assistant Professor. The counsel for the respondent No. 8 submits that for promotion of a Demonstrator to Assistant Professor, the provisions of Rule 2(i) as contained in the alleged notification dated 29-01-2001 will have to be read along with the 1983 Regulations. 20. The counsel thus submits that in view of the fact that the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 have completed 6 years of service as Demonstrator, hence, there is no infirmity in the order wherein the respondent No. 8 has been selected for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor. 21. In respect of respondent No. 7, the counsel for the respondent No. 8 submits that as the respondent No. 7 does not have the 3 years teaching experience after getting the post-graduate qualification, the selection of the respondent No. 7 in violation of the 1983 Regulations is illegal and his selection is not sustainable in law. 22. The counsel for the respondent No. 8 also submits that all the Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India need not be gazetted as has been held by the Apex Court in T. Narasimhulu & Ors v. State of A.P. & Ors, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 545 . 23. The counsel for the respondent No. 8 also submits that the 1983 Regulations only gives the minimum basic qualification and teaching experience required for teachers for Undergraduate Dentists Studies and the same is not a criteria for promotion. He submits that in addition to the minimum basic qualification and teaching experience required for teachers as given in 1983 Regulations, the alleged notification dated 29-01-2001 gives an added criteria for promotion, i.e. 6 years of service after obtaining PG Degree/ Demonstrator. 24. He submits that in addition to the minimum basic qualification and teaching experience required for teachers as given in 1983 Regulations, the alleged notification dated 29-01-2001 gives an added criteria for promotion, i.e. 6 years of service after obtaining PG Degree/ Demonstrator. 24. The counsel for the respondent No. 8 submits that the petitioner was given retrospective promotion w.e.f. the date of joining of the respondent No. 8 as Assistant Professor, which was on 16-01-2006, vide order dated 21-10-2009 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary. He submits that retrospective promotion could have been given to the petitioner only on the recommendation by a Review Selection Committee. However, as the Review Selection Committee has not been constituted for considering the retrospective promotion given to the petitioner, the retrospective promotion given to the petitioner by the Additional Chief Secretary has to be set aside, as the Additional Chief Secretary does not have the authority to give retrospective promotion. 25. The counsel for the respondent No. 8 also submits that the petitioner could not have been promoted with retrospective effect in view of the fact that there was no vacant post of Assistant Professor in the Department of Periodontics to accommodate the petitioner. He also submits that the creation of supernumerary post to accommodate the petitioner as an Assistant Professor with retrospective effect from 16-01-2006 was illegal and should be set aside. 26. Ms. S.P. Hussain, counsel for the respondent No. 7, besides echoing the submission of the counsel for the respondent No. 8 also submits that the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam could not have passed the impugned order dated 21-10-2009 whereby the service of the respondent No. 7 as Assistant Professor has been made effective only from April, 2007. The counsel for the respondent No. 7 submits that no notice was issued to the respondent No. 7 prior to the issuance of the impugned order. Also the Additional Chief Secretary does not have the power to issue an order giving retrospective promotion to the petitioner or altering the respondent No. 7's date of appointment. The counsel for the respondent No. 7 also submits that a subsequent corrigendum dated 26-04-2006 had been issued by the respondents, after the earlier promotion order dated 16-01-2006 was issued, by which the respondent No. 7 has been promoted as Assistant Professor in Community Dentistry, which was lying vacant since its creation. 27. Mr. The counsel for the respondent No. 7 also submits that a subsequent corrigendum dated 26-04-2006 had been issued by the respondents, after the earlier promotion order dated 16-01-2006 was issued, by which the respondent No. 7 has been promoted as Assistant Professor in Community Dentistry, which was lying vacant since its creation. 27. Mr. S.K. Talukdar, counsel for the Health Department submits that there is no infirmity with the order dated 21-10-2009 giving retrospective promotion to the petitioner as the respondent No. 7 was promoted on the said date. He submits that the respondent No. 7 was promoted in violation of the 1983 Regulations, which holds the field for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor. 28. Mr. N. Upadhyay, counsel for the State Government also supports the stand taken by Mr. S.K. Talukdar. 29. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 30. On perusal of the alleged notification dated 29-01-2001, which is purportedly a Rule made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, I find that the same has been made for the purpose of extending the benefit of the 1996 revised AICT Pay Scale to the teachers of the Regional Dental College and the teachers of Dental Wing of the Assam Medical College, Dibrugarh Medical College and Silchar Medical College of the State w.e.f. 01-01-1996. The said alleged notification dated 29-01-2001 nowhere states that it is a Rule to regulate the recruitment and appointment of Assistant Professors. Usually when a Rule is made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the same is gazetted and a provision is inserted in the said Rule as to the date when the Rule is to come into force. In the present alleged notification dated 29-01-2001, there is no provision stating when the Rule is to come into force or whether the Rule comes into force on the date that has been given in the said alleged notification. In fact, though this Court has used the word "alleged notification" while referring to the said Rules/ alleged notification dated 29-01-2001, the word "alleged notification" is absent from the same. The "alleged notification" is not a notification, order, or even a letter, as it is not addressed to anyone. 31. Another aspect of the alleged notification dated 29-01-2001 is that Rule 2 gives the essential requirement for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor. The "alleged notification" is not a notification, order, or even a letter, as it is not addressed to anyone. 31. Another aspect of the alleged notification dated 29-01-2001 is that Rule 2 gives the essential requirement for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor. Rule 2(i) of the alleged notification dated 29-01-2001 is quoted below: "2. The promotion to the next higher grade will be regulated by availability of the vacancies in the next higher grade (as per sanctioned posts mentioned above) as mentioned below:- (i) Assistant 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. 32. Another interesting feature of the alleged notification dated 29-01-2001 is the sentence at the end of Rule 3, which reads as follows: "The Department will amend the service Rules accordingly". 33. It is submitted at the Bar that there is no service Rule regulating the recruitment/appointment made by the State Government or by any authority for regulating the promotion of Assistant Professor to the post of Assistant Professor. If that be the case, it is not understood as to how the above-said line quoted could have been inserted in the alleged notification dated 29-01-2001. There is also no mention in the alleged notification dated 29-01-2001 that the present Rule made under Article 309 of the Constitution of India is an amending Rule. The provisions contained in the alleged notification dated 29-01-2001 seems to suggest that the said alleged notification has been made by total non-application of mind, having no nexus to any particular Rule as required by law. 34. Also at the end of the alleged notification dated 29-01-2001, the following Rule 10 states as follows: "10. The entries pertaining to the above mentioned posts in the pay schedule of the Assam Service (ROP) Rules, 1998 stands modified." 35. Assuming that the alleged notification dated 29-01-2001 is a valid Rule made under Article 309 of the Constitution, the same would then have to be tested with regard to whether it could override the basic qualifications and teaching experience inserted in 1983 Regulations. 36. In the case of Preeti Srivastava and another v. State of M.P. and others, reported in (1999) 7 SCC 120 , the Apex Court has held in Paragraphs 35 and 57 as follows: "35. 36. In the case of Preeti Srivastava and another v. State of M.P. and others, reported in (1999) 7 SCC 120 , the Apex Court has held in Paragraphs 35 and 57 as follows: "35. The legislative competence of Parliament and the legislatures of the States to make laws under Article 246 is regulated by the VIIth Schedule to the Constitution. In the VIIth Schedule as originally in force, Entry 11 of List II gave to the State an exclusive power to legislate on "education including universities, subject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I and Entry 25 of List III". Entry 11 of List II was deleted and Entry 25 of List III was amended with effect from 3-1-1976 as a result of the Constitution 42nd Amendment Act of 1976. The present entry 25 in the Concurrent List is as follows : "25. Education, including technical education, medical education and universities, subject to the provisions of Entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I; vocational and technical training of labour." Entry 25 is subject, inter alia, to Entry 66 of List I. Entry 66 of List I is as follows : "66. Coordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions." Both the Union as well as the States have the power to legislate on education including medical education, subject, inter alia, to Entry 66 of List I which deals with laying down standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions as also coordination of such standards. A State has, therefore, the right to control education including medical education so long as the field is not occupied by any Union legislation. Secondly, the State cannot, while controlling education in the State, impinge on standards in institutions for higher education. Because this is exclusively within the purview of the Union Government. Therefore, while prescribing the criteria for admission to the institutions for higher education including higher medical education, the State cannot adversely affect the standards laid down by the Union of India under Entry 66 of List I. Secondly, while considering the cases on the subject it is also necessary to remember that from 1977, education, including, inter alia, medical and university education, is now in the Concurrent List so that the Union can legislate on admission criteria also. If it does so, the State will not be able to legislate in this field, except as provided in Article 254." 37. In the case of T. Narashimhulu and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 545 , the Apex Court has held at para 15 as follows: 7. This is not to say that rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution are not required to be published at all. A rule made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution has the same effect as an Act of appropriate Legislature regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State. Hence, even if Article 309 of the Constitution does not say that the rules made under the proviso thereto are required to be published, these rules are required to be published just as any other Act passed by the appropriate Legislature is required to be published so that the persons affected by the rules or the Act are aware of the rule or the Act. 38. In the case of Harla v. The State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1951 SC 467 ), the Apex Court held as follows: ".... Natural justice requires that before a law can become operative it must be promulgated or published. It must be broadcast in some civilised way so that all men may know what it is or, at the very least, there must be some special rule or regulation or customary channel by or through which such knowledge can be acquired with the exercise of due and reasonable diligence. The thought that a decision reached in the secret recesses of a chamber to which the public have no access and to which even their accredited representatives have no access and of which they can normally know, can nevertheless affect their lives, liberty and property by the mere passing of a Resolution without anything more is abhorrent to civilised man. It shocks his conscience. In the absence therefore of any law, rule, regulation or custom, we hold that a law cannot come into being in this way. Promulgation or publication of some reasonable sort is essential." 39. In the case of State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. It shocks his conscience. In the absence therefore of any law, rule, regulation or custom, we hold that a law cannot come into being in this way. Promulgation or publication of some reasonable sort is essential." 39. In the case of State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. v. Adhiyaman Educational & Research Institute and Ors., reported in (1995) 4 SCC 104 the Apex Court has held that Article 254, regarding repugnancy in the legislation made by the Parliament and the State Legislature, which arises in the case of legislation on the subject in List-III. In that case, the law made by the legislature shall stand impliedly repealed to the extent of repugnancy to the law made by Parliament. 40. In view of the reasons stated above, the law laid down by the Apex court that a Rule made under the proviso to Article 309 is required to be published and as the alleged notification dated 29-01-2001 has not been published, the said alleged notification dated 29-01-2001, which is purportedly an amending Rule cannot be made applicable as there is no Service Rule to be amended. 41. A perusal of Rule 2(i) of the alleged notification dated 29-01-2001 also shows that the requirement of 3 years' service after obtaining post-graduate degree as required by the 1983 Regulations does not find mention. This omission also seems to imply that the respondents were not aware of the existence of 1983 Regulations. In any event, in the event of a conflict between the State law and a Central law in respect of education, the Central law will override the State law in view of the provisions of Entry 25 of List-III read with Entry 66 of List-I. It should also be noted that as there is no service Rule or Recruitment Rule regulating the promotion of Demonstrator to Assistant Professor, the "alleged notification" cannot be applied for the purpose of promotion of a Demonstrator to Assistant Professor as the amendment of the service Rules as reflected in the last line of Rule 3 of the alleged notification cannot be applied. 42. In Union of India And Another v. Tulsiram Patel and Others, reported in (1985) 3 SCC 398 , the Apex Court has held that source of power must exist for its exercise. 43. The promotion of the respondent Nos. 42. In Union of India And Another v. Tulsiram Patel and Others, reported in (1985) 3 SCC 398 , the Apex Court has held that source of power must exist for its exercise. 43. The promotion of the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 was made on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee minutes dated 20-05-2005. As such, the retrospective promotion given to the petitioner should also have been made on the basis of the recommendation of a Selection Committee. However, the petitioner's promotion order dated 21-10-2009 was made by the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam Health and Family Welfare Department. 44. The counsels for the parities have not been able to apprise this Court the source of power by which the Additional Chief Secretary has issued the promotion order of the petitioner with retrospective effect. Also the change of date of the promotion order of the respondent No. 7 is made by the Additional Chief Secretary in the said order without issuing any notice to the respondent No. 7, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 45. In view of the above reasons, the order dated 21-10-2009 issued by the Additional Chief Secretary is not sustainable and accordingly the same is set aside. 46. The promotions of the respondent Nos. 7 and 8 have purportedly been made on the basis of Selection Committee's minutes dated 20-05-2005. The members of the Selection Committee have been shown in its minutes dated 20-05-2005, which comprises as following members: "1. Shri B. Dutta, IAS Commissioner and Secretary, Health and FW Department. 2. Shri P.K. Goswami Joint Secretary, Health and Family Welfare (B) Department, 3. Shri U.C. Sarma Director of Medical Education, Assam, 4. Smti. R. Baruah Deputy Secretary, Personnel (B) Department. 5. Shri A.K. Baruah Deputy Secretary, Health and Family Welfare (B) Department." 47. In the case of Ambesh Kumar (Dr.) v. Principal, L.L.R.M. Medical College, Meerut and Others, reported in (1986) Supp. SCC 543, the Apex Court has held that the State while laying down the eligibility qualifications can add to the qualification made by the Indian Medical Council, but not diminish the eligibility qualifications laid down by the Indian Medical Council. 48. In the case of Ambesh Kumar (Dr.) v. Principal, L.L.R.M. Medical College, Meerut and Others, reported in (1986) Supp. SCC 543, the Apex Court has held that the State while laying down the eligibility qualifications can add to the qualification made by the Indian Medical Council, but not diminish the eligibility qualifications laid down by the Indian Medical Council. 48. In the present case, regard having regard to the 1983 Regulations made under the Dentist Act, 1948, which is a Central Act, the State Government could have made a Rule under Article 309 in addition to the qualifications already made by the Dental Council of India, if the same was not in conflict with the 1983 Regulations. 49. Keeping in view the above, in respect of the promotion of the respondent No. 7, which was made on the basis of the recommendation made by the Selection Committee in its meeting minutes dated 20-05-2005, the facts clearly show that the respondent No. 7 was recommended in violation of the guidelines laid down by the 1983 Regulations as the respondent No. 7 did not have the 3 years' teaching experience required at the time of the consideration of the case of the respondent No. 7. The respondent No. 7 having obtained his post-graduate degree of 05-03-2004, the petitioner's case could not have been considered prior to 04-03-2007. Accordingly, the recommendations of the Selection Committee vide its meeting minutes dated 20-05-2005 is not sustainable and accordingly, the same is set aside. Consequently, the promotion order dated 16-01-2006 given to the respondent No. 7 on the basis of the minutes of the Selection Committee held on 20-05-2005 is also set aside. 50. In respect of promotion of the respondent No. 8, this Court holds that though the Selection Committee Minutes have not taken into consideration the relevant/germane issues while recommending the promotion of the respondent No. 8, the facts stated by the parties clearly show that the respondent No. 8 had all the requisite qualifications necessary as per the 1983 Regulations to be promoted to the post of Assistant Professor. Also, as the petitioner does not want to press his case for setting aside the promotion of the respondent No. 8, this Court is not interfering with the promotion of the respondent No. 8 as he had all the requisite qualifications required for promotion to Assistant Professor. 51. Also, as the petitioner does not want to press his case for setting aside the promotion of the respondent No. 8, this Court is not interfering with the promotion of the respondent No. 8 as he had all the requisite qualifications required for promotion to Assistant Professor. 51. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court is of the opinion that a review DPC should take place wherein the petitioner and the respondent No. 7 should be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor as per the BDS Course Regulation, 1983 issued by the Dental Council of India. The said Review DPC/Selection Committee should be constituted and decision be made by it within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Till a decision is made by the Review DPC/Selection Committee, the present posts held by the petitioner and the respondent No. 7 shall not be disturbed. 52. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.