ORDER : The “order of seniority” of the teaching faculty in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology in RIMS fixed by the impugned order contained in Memo dated 20.05.2015 has brought the petitioner to this Court. 2. Heard. 3. Mr. Mahesh Tewari, the learned counsel for the petitioner referring to the impugned order dated 20.05.2015 submits that the respondent no.7 who did not undergo the 'Residency Course' has been appointed to the post of Assistant Professor, notionally with effect from 15.08.2002 though, she joined the said post on 01.06.2004. On that basis, it is contended that the petitioner is senior to the respondent no.7 and while so, she should have been made Head, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at RIMS. 4. There are five private respondents, however, it is an admitted position that all except, respondent no.7 have retired and respondent no.7 is presently holding the post of in-charge Head of Department. Dr. S.K. Verma, the learned counsel for the respondent no.7 supports the impugned order on the basis of seniority of respondent no.7, though notional, on the post of Assistant Professor. 5. The petitioner was appointed on 10.12.1983 to the post of Civil Assistant Surgeon, Sadar Hospital, Ranchi. The petitioner worked as Resident Doctor for the period between 04.05.1990 to 22.01.1996. She has worked as Assistant Professor from 24.03.2004 to 30.07.2008. By a common notification, petitioner and the respondent no.7, both were promoted to the rank of Associate Professor with effect from 31.07.2008. This notification would reflect that the respondent no.7 was granted notional promotion to the post of Assistant Professor with effect from 15.08.2002. Notification dated 31.07.2008 is not under challenge. Thus, the petitioner has not thrown a challenge to her promotion to the post of Associate Professor with effect from 31.07.2008, on which date the respondent no.7 was also promoted to the post of Associate Professor. For promotion to the post of Associate Professor five years continuous service as Assistant Professor is one of the essential qualifications. It, thus, would appear that there is hierarchy of posts in the teaching faculty and in the rank of Associate Professor, the petitioner and respondent no.7, both came on the same date. In that view of the matter, it cannot be concluded that the respondent no.7 is senior to the petitioner. Once they became Associate professor, their initial date of appointment and promotion as Assistant Professor become irrelevant. In that view of the matter, it cannot be concluded that the respondent no.7 is senior to the petitioner. Once they became Associate professor, their initial date of appointment and promotion as Assistant Professor become irrelevant. The date on which the impugned order contained in Memo dated 20.05.2015 was passed, the petitioner and respondent no.7, both had entered in the rank of Associate Professor on the same date. For that reason, the impugned order contained in Memo dated 20.05.2015 requires interference and accordingly, it is quashed. In terms of the RIMS Act, 2002 and the rules and the regulations framed thereunder, appointment to the post of Professor has to be made through advertisement and therefore, the issue of seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent no.7 looses significance. 6. The petitioner is seeking shifting of the date of her promotion to the post of Assistant Professor with effect from 05.05.1993, to the post of Associate Professor with effect from 05.05.1997/1998 and Professor from the year 2000/2001. Insofar as promotion in the rank of Assistant Professor with effect from 05.05.1993 is concerned, the petitioner about more than a decade after her promotion to the said post cannot be permitted to lay challenge to her promotion as Assistant Professor with effect from 24.03.2004. The claim for promotion to the post of Professor is liable to be rejected simply on the ground that by the impugned order contained in Memo dated 20.05.2015 a direction has been issued for publishing an advertisement for appointment on the said post, which direction is not under challenge. Moreover, it is an admitted position that to the post of Professor appointment shall be made through advertisement and on the recommendation of the Standing Selection Committee by the Governing Body. Claim for promotion with effect from 05.05.1997/1998 is also without any substance. No foundation has been laid in the writ petition for claiming promotion as Associate Professor with effect from 05.05.1997/1998, on which post the petitioner was promoted by Notification dated 31.07.2008. 7. It is admitted at Bar that the respondent-RIMS has not complied with the direction contained in Memo dated 20.05.2015 by publishing an advertisement for appointment to the post of Professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at RIMS. 8. Dr. 7. It is admitted at Bar that the respondent-RIMS has not complied with the direction contained in Memo dated 20.05.2015 by publishing an advertisement for appointment to the post of Professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at RIMS. 8. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-RIMS undertakes on behalf of respondent no.3 that an advertisement as directed by the Principal Secretary shall be issued within two weeks and the selection process shall be completed within three months thereafter. This undertaking is accepted. 9. The writ petition stands partly allowed, in the aforesaid terms.