JUDGMENT : RAJESH BINDAL, J. 1. The present intra-court appeal has been filed by the respondent No. 3 in the writ petition, challenging the order passed by learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 herein was allowed. 2. The respondent No. 1 herein filed the writ petition challenging the order dated 27.04.2011, whereby the present appellant was promoted as Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychiatry. Further prayer was made to fill up the post on regular basis as per rules. Learned Single Judge while recording certain finding on the eligibility of respondent No. 1, allowed the writ petition and directed the official respondents to take further steps. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order present intra-court appeal has been filed by the respondent No. 3 in the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was selected and appointed as lecturer in the Department of Psychiatry on 08.04.2008 and being eligible to be promoted in terms of The Jammu and Kashmir Medical Education (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1979 (for short ‘the 1979 Rules’) was promoted on In-charge basis as Assistant Professor in the Psychiatry Department. Without there being any basis and the respondent No. 1 being not even in the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor, challenged his promotion. The respondent No. 1 was appointed as Lecturer (Clinical Psychologist Non-Medical) on 09.07.1998. The qualifications required for recruitment to the post of Lecturer (Clinical Psychologist Non-Medical) are altogether different as compared to the qualifications required for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor. As per the 1979 Rules only a lecturer in Psychiatry with three years experience is eligible. As the respondent No. 1 was not working as lecturer in Psychiatry he was not eligible to be considered for the post. In fact the writ petition was totally misconceived. The appellant had been promoted as Assistant Professor on In-charge basis vide order dated 27.04.2011 on which date the respondent No. 1 did not even have the requisite qualification required for the post of Assistant Professor. She got her Ph.D. degree in May, 2011. 4. Learned counsel had further referred to General Notes appended with the 1979 Rules in support of his argument that candidate having medical qualification is only eligible to be considered and promoted as Assistant Professor in Psychiatry. She got her Ph.D. degree in May, 2011. 4. Learned counsel had further referred to General Notes appended with the 1979 Rules in support of his argument that candidate having medical qualification is only eligible to be considered and promoted as Assistant Professor in Psychiatry. The respondent No. 1 had obtained her Ph.D. degree in Clinical Psychology. The two subjects are altogether different as for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor in Psychiatry she will not be eligible. 5. On the other hand learned counsel for the State submitted that after discussing the issues the learned Single Judge has left it to the authorities to consider and take a decision regarding promotion to the post of Assistant Professor, hence, the appellant did not have any cause of action to file the present appeal. He further submitted that though there are qualifications prescribed for promotion from the post of lecturer to senior positions in the hierarchy but even the candidate with equivalent qualification is also eligible. He further submitted that in Note 5 in the General Notes appended with the 1979 Rules it is clearly mentioned that equivalent qualification referred in the schedule is to be determined by the Government in consultation with the Medical Council of India. 6. Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 submitted that the argument of the appellant that lecturer in Psychiatry and lecturer (Clinical Psychologist Non-Medical) are two different posts, is totally fallacious. Both are working as lecturers in the Department of Psychiatry. And for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor in Psychiatry both are eligible. He further referred to seniority list of lecturers circulated by the Department on 23.03.2011, wherein the respondent No. 1 has been shown senior to the appellant. He also laid stress on words ‘equivalent qualification’ as mentioned in the 1979 Rules. He further submitted that in terms of General Notes appended with the 1979 Rules, even non-medical teachers can be promoted if they possess Ph.D. degree. Once this is mentioned in the Rules itself, no consultation or clarification is required from any authority. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. 8. The post for which the appellant and the respondent No. 1 are contesting is governed by the 1979 Rules. They both are working in Psychiatry Department. Once this is mentioned in the Rules itself, no consultation or clarification is required from any authority. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. 8. The post for which the appellant and the respondent No. 1 are contesting is governed by the 1979 Rules. They both are working in Psychiatry Department. To appreciate the contention being raised by the learned counsels for the parties, it would be appropriate to extract relevant part of the Rules, which are as under: Schedule-II S. No. Subject Designation of the post Minimum qualification Minimum teaching/research experience 1-13 xxx xxx xxx xxx 14 Psychiatry (a) Professor M.D. in (Psychiatry) Specialty Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (USA) M.R.C. Psych. (UK) As Associate Professor in Psychiatry for five years in a Medical College or a recognized teaching medical institution such as AIIMS New Delhi, PGI Chandigarh, JIMIER Pondicherry and such other institutions, as are recognized by the Medical Council of India. (b) Associate Professor -do- As Associate Professor in Psychiatry for five years in a Medical College or a recognized teaching medical institution such as AIIMS New Delhi, PGI Chandigarh, JIMIER Pondicherry and such other institutions, as are recognized by the Medical Council of India. (c) Assistant Professor -do- As Lecturer in Psychiatry for three years in a Medical College or a recognized teaching medical institution such as AIIMS New Delhi, PGI Chandigarh, JIMIER Pondicherry and such other institutions, as are recognized by the Medical Council of India. (d) Lecturer -do- As Registrar/Tutor, Demonstrator/Tutor or a Senior Resident for a period of two years in a recognized Teaching Medical Institution recognized by the Medical Council of India or the University of Kashmir/ Jammu. Provided that the teaching experience, if any, gained before or during the post-graduation studentship shall not considered while determining the eligibility for the post of Lecturer. (e) Lecturer (Clinical Psychologist Non-Medical) Second Class Master's degree in Psychiatry from a recognized University or equivalent qualification or post-graduate diploma in Clinical Psychology or Diploma in Guidance Psychology. At least two years experience as Clinical Psychologist in Mental Hospital, Child Guidance Clinic or Hospital, Psychiatric Department of a General Hospital or a teacher or Research Worker in the field of Clinical Psychology. At least two years experience as Clinical Psychologist in Mental Hospital, Child Guidance Clinic or Hospital, Psychiatric Department of a General Hospital or a teacher or Research Worker in the field of Clinical Psychology. Schedule-III Class Category Designation of the Post Grade Method of recruitment (A) Teaching Wing: (i) Principal 1200-1900 By promotion from Class II (ii) Professor 1200-1900 By promotion from Class III (iii) Associate Professor 1000-1500 By promotion from Class IV (iv) Assistant Professor 750-1350 By promotion from Class V (v) Lecturer including Clinical Psychologist (Non-Medical) 600-1350 By direct recruitment General Note: “1........... 2. Except in the case of Non-Clinical Departments of Anatomy, Physiology, Pharmacology, Bio-Chemistry and Micro-Biology, where non-medical teachers to the extent of 30% may be appointed to posts other than the head of the departments (who must necessarily hold a recognised medical qualification); all other teachers must possess the following basic qualifications in addition to Post-graduate qualifications mentioned in the above schedule, namely:- “Recognised qualifications included in the First or Second Schedule; or Part II of the Third Schedule (other than licentiate qualifications) to the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Holders of Educational qualifications mentioned in Part II of the Third Schedule should fulfill the conditions stipulated in sub-section (3) of section 13 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. However, a Non-Medical Teacher in Bio-Chemistry in a Medical College with Directorate qualifications in Biochemistry may also be considered for the post of the Head of the Department of Bio-Chemistry.” 3. Non-Medical M.Sc. Qualification can only be considered as sufficient for the Junior teaching posts in the subject [like Lecturers/Demonstrators]. For promotion to higher teaching posts they must acquire the Ph.D. Degree in the subject. 5. Equivalent qualification, referred to in the above schedule shall be determined by the Government in consultation with the Medical Council of India.” 9. In the case in hand as pleaded, the respondent No. 1 was working as lecturer (Clinical Psychologist Non-Medical). She was appointed as such on 09.07.1998 having Masters Degree in Psychology. The appellant was appointed as lecturer in the Department of Psychiatry on 08.04.2008. The respondent No. 1 challenged the order dated 27.04.2011 vide which the present appellant was promoted on In-charge basis as Assistant Professor in his own pay and grade. Grievance was that the respondent No. 1/petitioner was senior to him. The appellant was appointed as lecturer in the Department of Psychiatry on 08.04.2008. The respondent No. 1 challenged the order dated 27.04.2011 vide which the present appellant was promoted on In-charge basis as Assistant Professor in his own pay and grade. Grievance was that the respondent No. 1/petitioner was senior to him. The learned Single Judge opined that the respondent No. 1/petitioner who was working as lecturer (Clinical Psychology Non-Medical) was also fully eligible to be promoted as Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychiatry. The writ petition was finally disposed of with the following directions: “For the reasons discussed, the writ petition is disposed of as under: (i) The respondents 1 and 2 are directed to refer case of the petitioner and respondent No. 3 to Public Service Commission/Departmental Promotion Committee for accord of consideration to their promotion to the post of Assistant Professor in Psychiatry Department within two months from the date of receipt of the order. (ii) The Public Service Commission/Departmental Promotion Committee shall take a decision in the matter within one month from the date, the matter is received from respondent Nos. 1 and 2. (iii) The respondents may continue with the present arrangement, i.e. placement of respondent No. 3 in her own pay and grade as Assistant Professor till 31st December, 2012 or till promotion on substantive basis is made by respondents 1 and 2 to the post of Assistant Professor in Psychiatry Department, on the recommendation of Public Service Commission/Departmental Promotion Committee, whichever is earlier. (iv) The arrangement in any case shall cease to have any effect from 31.12.2012. It is made clear that all questions regarding entitlement of petitioner and respondent No. 3 to the promotion in question, their experience as also the effect on prospects of the petitioner, having regard to the date, PH.D. Degree in Clinical Psychology was awarded to her is left open to be looked into by the Public Service Commission/Departmental Promotion Committee. (v) This order shall not stand in the way of either of the parties not satisfied with the recommendation made by the Public Service Commission/Departmental Promotion Committee or the orders made upon such recommendation to work out her remedy.” 10. (v) This order shall not stand in the way of either of the parties not satisfied with the recommendation made by the Public Service Commission/Departmental Promotion Committee or the orders made upon such recommendation to work out her remedy.” 10. The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant herein regarding eligibility of the respondent No. 1/petitioner was rejected with the following reasons: “The argument is devoid of any substance for following reasons: (a) The qualification prescribed for the post of Assistant Professor in Column-4, Schedule-II includes “equivalent qualification.” It is, therefore, not necessary that a Lecturer working in Department of Psychiatry, having requisite experience but not M.D. (Psychiatry) Degree to her credit, is not eligible for promotion as Assistant Professor in the Psychiatry Department. A “Lecturer” would be also eligible as long as he/she has “an equivalent qualification.” (b) The General Note-2 to Schedule-II reproduced above makes it clear that the Rule Makers have only set apart the post of Head of Department, for promotion exclusively from amongst Associate Professors holding a recognised medical qualification. The exception carved out in case of Head of Department obviously implies that all other positions, i.e. Associate Professor and Assistant Professor may be filled up by the eligible faculty Member though not holding a recognised medical qualification. It follows that Non-Medical Teachers/Lecturers, i.e. Lecturers not holding a recognised Medical Degree, have a right to be considered for promotion to all senior positions except that of Head of the Department. (c) The General Note-3 expressly provides that a Non-Medical Teacher/Lecturer to be considered for promotion to a higher faculty position must hold a PH.D. Degree and that M.Sc. Degree would suffice only for his appointment against a junior faculty position, i.e. Lecturer/demonstrator. This makes it amply clear that the Rule Makers contemplated that the Non-Medical Teachers/Lecturers would also be eligible for promotion to the higher faculty positions like Assistant Professor and Associate Professors as long as they have Doctorate in the discipline to their credit. (d) When we read Subject 14, Schedule-II conjointly with General Notes 2 and 3, it appears that the PH.D. Degree held by a Non-Medical Lecturer is to be treated as equivalent to M.D. (Psychiatry) within meaning of relevant entry in Column-4 of Schedule-II against Subject 14 Part (c), i.e. Assistant Professor. (d) When we read Subject 14, Schedule-II conjointly with General Notes 2 and 3, it appears that the PH.D. Degree held by a Non-Medical Lecturer is to be treated as equivalent to M.D. (Psychiatry) within meaning of relevant entry in Column-4 of Schedule-II against Subject 14 Part (c), i.e. Assistant Professor. (e) This apart, the case projected by learned counsel for the respondents, if accepted, would lead to irrational and anomalous conclusions. In case, it is accepted that Lecturer (Clinical Psychologist Non-Medical) is not eligible for promotion as Assistant Professor, the result would be that a Lecturer (Clinical Psychologist Non-Medical) would stagnate in a post without any promotional avenue and retire as Lecturer (Clinical Psychologist Non-Medical). Such interpretation would also render General Notes 2 and 3 and in particular, General Note-3 meaningless, superfluous and redundant. Therefore, interpretation of Subject 14 (c) as suggested by learned counsel for the respondents would be impermissible and not in conformity with spirit and mandate of Rules. (f) From the above discussion, it emerges that when we take a holistic view of the Rule position and read Subject 14 Schedule-II conjointly with General Notes 2 and 3, we arrived at the irresistible conclusion that the Lecturer (Clinical Psychologist Non-Medical) is equally eligible for promotion as Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychiatry as the Lecturer shown at 14(d) of the Schedule-II.” 11. A perusal of the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge shows that he had entered into arena of equating the qualifications possessed by the respondent No. 1 with the qualifications prescribed in the 1979 Rules. The Court does not have the expertise for that. In fact, the 1979 Rules provide for a clear answer to that in the form of Note-5 in the General Notes, which has been extracted above. The Note clearly provides that equivalent qualification referred to in the Schedule shall be determined by the Government in consultation with the Medical Council of India. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the respondent No. 1 was not having the qualification of MD in Psychiatry. The respondent No. 1 claimed that she had got Ph.D. degree in Clinical Psychology in May, 2011. All what the respondent No. 1 wanted was that her Ph.D. qualification be treated as equivalent. In the case in hand, it is not in dispute that the respondent No. 1 was not having the qualification of MD in Psychiatry. The respondent No. 1 claimed that she had got Ph.D. degree in Clinical Psychology in May, 2011. All what the respondent No. 1 wanted was that her Ph.D. qualification be treated as equivalent. The equivalence of the aforesaid degree was required to be considered with reference to other qualifications mentioned for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor. The learned Single Judge could not have opined on that equivalence. 12. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of learned Single Judge is set aside. The writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 is dismissed. The State is at liberty to determine, in consultation with the Medical Council of India, as to whether the qualification possessed by the respondent No. 1 was equivalent to the other qualifications required for promotion to the post of Assistant Professor as per the 1979 Rules and proceed further.