JUDGMENT Ajai Lamba, C.J. - This judgment shall dispose of 2(two) writ appeals, namely, Writ Appeal No.263/2019, which has been filed in challenge to judgment rendered in WP(C) No.2167/2016 (Dr. Hirak Das -Vs- State of Assam & 8 Ors.) AND Writ Appeal No.26/2019 that was filed in challenge to decision rendered in WP(C) No.3816/2016 (Dr. Hirak Das -Vs State of Assam & 5 Ors.). wxyz Both the writ petitions were decided/dismissed vide the common judgment dated 01.10.2018, hence, both the appeals are being dealt with by virtue of a single judgment. zyxw wxyz For reference to record, we are referring to the record of Writ Appeal No.263/2016, which has been filed in context of WP(C) No.2167/2016 (supra). The said writ petition was filed for quashing order dated 23.02.2016 whereby the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Associate Professor was rejected. zyxw 2. The skeleton of facts required for adjudication is that writ appellant/writ petitioner completed his MBBS Degree from Gauhati Medical College & Hospital. Thereafter, the writ appellant completed his MD in Anatomy from Gauhati Medical College & Hospital. The writ appellant joined Vinayaka Missions Kirupananda Variar Medical College, Salem, Tamil Nadu on 17.08.2009 as Assistant Professor and served as such till 30.10.2010. It has been asserted that the said College is recognized by Medical Council of India. 3. It is an admitted fact that the writ appellant/writ petitioner resigned from the post of Assistant Professor in Vinayaka Missions Kirupananda Variar Medical College, Salem, Tamil Nadu on 30.10.2010, and was relieved on the same day. 4. It has been pleaded that the writ appellant was selected by Assam Public Services Commission as a Demonstrator of Anatomy and posted in Silchar Medical College vide the appointment letter dated 10.12.2010. 5. It has been pleaded that after serving in Silchar Medical College for 71/2 months, the writ appellant was transferred to Assam Medical College & Hospital at Dibrugarh and joined the said College as Assistant Professor on promotion. Thereafter, the writ appellant was transferred to Silchar Medical College in the same capacity, where he joined on 03.01.2013. The writ appellant was again transferred to Assam Medical College & Hospital, Dibrugarh on 04.04.2013 and continued to serve to said College as Assistant Professor till 18.06.2015. wxyz Thereafter, the writ appellant, on being transferred, joined Gauhati Medical College & Hospital on 30.06.2015 as Assistant Professor. The writ appellant was again transferred to Assam Medical College & Hospital, Dibrugarh on 04.04.2013 and continued to serve to said College as Assistant Professor till 18.06.2015. wxyz Thereafter, the writ appellant, on being transferred, joined Gauhati Medical College & Hospital on 30.06.2015 as Assistant Professor. It has been asserted on behalf of the writ appellant that cumulative experience of the writ appellant was 5(five) years and 3(three) months in the capacity of serving as Assistant Professor while including his service in Vinayaka Missions Kirupananda Variar Medical College, Salem, Tamil Nadu. zyxw wxyz It is the admitted case of the writ appellant that he has not completed 4(four) years service under Assam Medical Education Service. zyxw 6. It has been asserted on behalf of the writ appellant that the appellant has 4(four) publications to his credit in National Journals. 7. It has been pleaded on behalf of the writ appellant/writ petitioner that post of Associate Professor under Assam Medical Education Service Rules, 2008 (for short, "Rules of 2008") is filled only by promotion from the post of Assistant Professor by a person who has served as Assistant Professor for 4(four) years, as provided under the Rules. It has been asserted that the writ appellant/writ petitioner having served as Assistant Professor for 4(four) years, though including the period of service rendered in Tamil Nadu, is eligible for promotion. 8. At this juncture, we would like to extract the relevant Rules of 2008 hereunder:- wxyz "2(h) ''Member'' means a Member of the Assam Medical Education Service. zyxw wxyz X X X X X X X X X zyxw wxyz 11.(1) Subject to suitability as may be decided by the Appointing Authority and by the Selection board and also subject to possessing such qualification and experience as prescribed hereinafter, a member shall be eligible for selection/promotion against vacancies in the corresponding higher post in the manner hereinafter provided namely :- zyxw wxyz (I) X X X X X X X X X zyxw wxyz (ii) A Member of the service holding the post of Assistant Professor (Senior Scale-I) shall be eligible for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor (Senior Scale-II) in accordance with MCI regulation provided the Governor is satisfied about his/her ability integrity and character." (emphasized by us) zyxw 9. We would also like to extract the relevant Regulation from Medical Council of India Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998 (for short, "Regulations of 1998"), as amended up to 08.06.2017. The relevant portion of the Regulation that was applicable at the time of consideration of the claim of the writ appellant to promotion from Assistant Professor to Associate Professor reads as under:- wxyz "(i) As Assistant Professor in Anatomy for four years in the recognized medical college. zyxw wxyz (ii) Minimum of two research publications in indexed/national journals. zyxw wxyz The above has been further amended vide Notification dated 15.12.2009. zyxw wxyz Provided that these research publications are published/accepted for publication in the Journals by the National Associations/Societies of the respective specialties as the First Author. Further provided that the requirement of 2 research publications for promotion to the post of Associate Professor should be fulfilled with 2 research publication must be published during the tenure of the Assistant Professor." zyxw 10. In terms of Regulations of 1998, which are required to be read in conjunction with the Rules of 2008, the writ appellant claimed to be eligible for promotion to the post of Associate Professor, having completed 4(four) years in service as Assistant Professor, cumulatively in Tamil Nadu and in Assam, as per details given above. The issue has been considered by the learned Single Judge in the following terms in Paragraphs 16, 17, 18 & 19 of the impugned judgment, which read as under:- wxyz "16. From a reading of the corrigendum dated 05-06-2014, it is seen that the experience as Assistant Professor in the concerned subject is four years in a recognized medical college has been replaced by inserting the word ''the'' in place of ''a''. A reading of the same would indicate, in my considered opinion, that in the earlier requirement, it would be in any recognized medical college. However, in the corrigendum dated 05-06-2014 with the insertion of the word ''the'', it would mean that the work/teaching experience would be only in the recognized medical college where the petitioner is serving. Therefore, the past experience of the petitioner while working in the Vinayaka Missions Kirupananda Variar Medical College, Salem, Tamil Nadu cannot be taken into consideration in the recognized medical college in which the petitioner is serving in the State of Assam. zyxw wxyz 17. Therefore, the past experience of the petitioner while working in the Vinayaka Missions Kirupananda Variar Medical College, Salem, Tamil Nadu cannot be taken into consideration in the recognized medical college in which the petitioner is serving in the State of Assam. zyxw wxyz 17. A further perusal of the Rules of 2008 would indicate that the post of Demonstrator is in the cadre of Class-1 (Junior Grade) and the post of Assistant Professor is in the cadre of Class-1 (Senior Grade). It is also not disputed that the petitioner on being appointed as Demonstrator by the Notification dated 10-12- 2010was further promoted to the next higher post of Assistant Professor in Class-1 (Senior Grade) in the year 2011. This would clearly indicate that the petitioner after serving as Assistant Professor in the Vinayaka Missions Kirupananda Variar Medical College, Salem, Tamil Nadu had joined to a lower post of Demonstrator on being selected by the APSC. Thereafter, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Professor. On this ground too, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot claim his past experience in Vinayaka Missions Kirupananda Variar Medical College, Salem, Tamil Nadu on his promotion to the post of Assistant Professor from the post of Demonstrator in the State of Assam. zyxw wxyz 18. The Notification dated 10-12-2010 by which the petitioner was appointed along with eight others as Demonstrator under various medical colleges in the State of Assam clearly indicates that the private respondents are above the petitioner in order of merit. The provisional gradation list of Anatomy Department of Medical Colleges of the State as on 01-03-2012 circulated by the Notification dated 02-04- 2012 also clearly indicates that the petitioner is placed at Serial No. 28 and the private respondents are above the petitioner in order of seniority. This being the position, this Court has no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the petitioner is junior to the private respondents and merely because of the past experience in Vinayaka Missions Kirupananda Variar Medical College, Salem, Tamil Nadu, the petitioner cannot claim for promotion ahead of the private respondents. zyxw wxyz 19. This Court has also considered the minutes of the selection committee meeting held on 24-02-2016 by which the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in W.P.(C) 3815 of 2016were recommended for promotion to the post of Associate Professor. zyxw wxyz 19. This Court has also considered the minutes of the selection committee meeting held on 24-02-2016 by which the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in W.P.(C) 3815 of 2016were recommended for promotion to the post of Associate Professor. A consideration of the same would indicate that the guidelines of MCI as well as the Rules of 2008 were taken into consideration by the selection committee as well as other relevant records and had thereafter, recommended the case of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in W.P.(C) 3816 of 2016 for promotion to the post of Associate Professor. Consequently, the official respondents had issued the Notification dated 06-06- 2016promoting the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 in W.P (C) 3816 of 2016 to the post of Associate Professor. This Court does not see any infirmity either in the minutes of the Selection Committee held on 24-02-2016 nor in the Notification dated 06-06-2016." zyxw 11. Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. B.M. Deka, has vehemently argued that the relevant factor to be considered for promotion is the experience. The Rules and Regulations, above extracted, and the Rules and Regulations considered by the learned Single Judge inhere experience as Assistant Professor for 4(four) years. The writ appellant has that experience and, therefore, for the wrong reasons he has been unsuited. It has been contended that the word "the" occurring in the Regulations of 1998 cannot be given the meaning that the candidate must have served as Assistant Professor in Anatomy for 4(four) years in the same recognized Medical College. It has been pleaded that it would be reading beyond the Rules if such a requirement is introduced. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that earlier under the unmodified Rules, the requirement for promotion to the post of Associate Professor was experience as Assistant Professor in Anatomy for 5(five) years in a recognized Medical College. The very fact that the said Regulation has been modified and "the" has substituted "a" would mean that the experience as Assistant Professor should be in the same service. 13. We have considered the rival contentions. We have also carefully gone through the contents of the impugned judgment. wxyz In the considered opinion of the Court, the interpretation given to the relevant Regulation (extracted above) in Paragraph 16 of the impugned judgment (extracted above) does not deserve any interference. 13. We have considered the rival contentions. We have also carefully gone through the contents of the impugned judgment. wxyz In the considered opinion of the Court, the interpretation given to the relevant Regulation (extracted above) in Paragraph 16 of the impugned judgment (extracted above) does not deserve any interference. zyxw wxyz In addition to the reasons given by the learned Single Judge, we have also considered that the Rules of 2008, relevant portion whereof has been extracted above, provides "A member of service holding the post of Assistant Professor (Senior Scale-I) shall be eligible for promotion to the rank of Associate Professor (Senior Scale-II) in accordance with MCI regulation provided the Governor is satisfied about his/her ability, integrity and character". zyxw wxyz In the said Rule, the term "Member of the Service" has been defined under Rule 2(h), which has been extracted above, which would mean "Member of the Assam Medical Education Service". Evidently and admittedly at the point in time when the claim of the writ appellant was considered for promotion to the post of Associate Professor, the writ appellant had not completed 4(four) years service as Assistant Professor (Senior Scale-I) in Assam Medical Education Service. In view of the rule position also, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the writ appellant was not eligible to promotion on the post of Associate Professor, he not having completed 4(four) years as Assistant Professor as a member of service in Assam Medical Education Service. zyxw 14. In peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we have also considered that admittedly the writ appellant tendered his resignation from the post in Tamil Nadu. Thereafter all lien with the earlier employer broke. There is no arrangement between the institution in Tamil Nadu and Assam Medical Education Service for counting the experience rendered in Tamil Nadu for the purpose of promotion in Assam Medical Education Service. 15. In Sant Ram Sharma -Vs- State of Rajasthan & Ors., (1968) 1 SCR 111 , the issue of promotion/ideal promotional policy has been dealt with in Paragraph-9 (relevant portion) in the following terms:- wxyz "9. .............. The question of a proper promotion policy depends on various conflicting factors. It is obvious that the only method in which absolute objectivity can be ensured is for all promotions to be made entirely on grounds of seniority. .............. The question of a proper promotion policy depends on various conflicting factors. It is obvious that the only method in which absolute objectivity can be ensured is for all promotions to be made entirely on grounds of seniority. The means that if a post falls vacant it is filled by the person who has served longest in the post immediately below. .............. zyxw wxyz The principal object of a promotion system is to secure the best possible incumbents for the higher positions, while maintaining the moral of the whole organisation. The main interest to be served is the public interest, not the personal interest of members of the official group concerned. The public interest is best secured when reasonable opportunities for promotion exist for all qualified employees, when really superior civil servants are enabled to move as rapidly up the promotion ladder as their merits deserve and as vacancies occur, and when selection for promotion is made on the sole basis of merit. For the merit system ought to apply as specifically in making promotions as in original recruitment..... Employees often prefer the rule of seniority, by which the eligible longest in service is automatically awarded the promotion. Within limits, seniority is entitled to consideration as one criterion of selection. It tends to eliminate favouritism or the suspicion thereof; and experience is certainly a factor in the making of a successful employee. Seniority is given most weight in promotions from the lowest to other subordinate positions. As employees move up the ladder of responsibility, it is entitled to less the less weight. ......" zyxw 16. Promotion as understood under the service law jurisprudence means advancement in rank, grade or both. Promotion is always a step towards advancement to a higher position, grade or honour. [Vide the judgment rendered by Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Tarsem Sing & Anr. -Vs- State of Punjab & Ors., (1994) 5 SCC 392 (Paragraph-9)]. wxyz The meaning of the word "promotion" has been dealt with by Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in Union of India -Vs- Pushpa Rani & Ors., 2008 9 SCC 242 (Paragraph-32) in the following terms:- zyxw wxyz "32. The word ''Promotion'' means ''advancement or preferment in honour, dignity, rank or grade.'' ''Promotion'' thus not only covers advancement to higher position or rank but also implies advancement to a higher grade. The word ''Promotion'' means ''advancement or preferment in honour, dignity, rank or grade.'' ''Promotion'' thus not only covers advancement to higher position or rank but also implies advancement to a higher grade. In service law the expression ''promotion'' has been understood in the wider sense and it has been held that ''promotion'' can be either to a higher pay scale or to a higher post." [ State of Rajasthan -Vs- Fateh Chand Soni, (1996) 1 SCC 562 ]. zyxw 17. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, in context of the observations of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in context of promotion as to be understood in service law jurisprudence, we are of the considered opinion that experience as Assistant Professor for 4(four) years, for promotion to the post of Associate Professor under Assam Medical Education Service was required as a Member of the said service. The experience gained in Tamil Nadu cannot be counted towards the said experience, for the purposes of promotion to the post of Associate Professor. This conclusion is inevitable if we consider harmoniously the provisions of Assam Medical Education Service Rules, 2008, Rule 11(1)(ii) and Rule 2(h), as extracted above, read in conjunction with Medical Council of India Minimum Qualifications for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998, relevant portion of which also has been extracted above. 18. Considering the rule position as specifically noticed above in context of the meaning of "promotion" to be understood in service law jurisprudence, we find that the decision rendered by learned Single Judge cannot be faulted. No interference therein is called for in writ appellate jurisdiction. wxyz Writ Appeal No.263/2019 is accordingly dismissed. zyxw 19. Writ Appeal No.26/2019 has been filed in context of promotion of the others. Since we have held, while dealing with Writ Appeal No.263/2019, that the writ appellant could have no claim to promotion because of lack of experience as Assistant Professor, we find no reason to allow Writ Appeal No.26/2019. wxyz Accordingly, Writ Appeal No.26/2019 is also hereby dismissed. zyxw 20. Ordered accordingly.