JUDGMENT : Alexander Thomas, J. The prayers in the aforecaptioned original petition (Kerala Administrative Tribunal) filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India are as follows (see page Nos.11 & 12 of the paper book of this O.P.):- “..............to set aside Exhibit P10 order dated 13.12.2019 in O.A. (E) No.1389/2018 on the file of the Honourable Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Additional Bench, Ernakulam by allowing this Original Petition.” 2. Heard Sri.B. Vinod, the learned Senior Government Pleader, appearing for the petitioners (State of Kerala and the Director of Medical Education) in the original petition/respondents 1 & 2 in the original application before the Tribunal, Sri.P.Nandakumar, the learned Advocate, appearing for the 1st respondent herein/the sole applicant in the original application before the Tribunal, and Sri. S.Vishnu Chempazhanthiyil, the learned Advocate appearing for the 3rd respondent herein/the 4th respondent in the original application. Though notice on the 2nd respondent herein/the 3rd respondent in the original application has been duly served on that party in this original petition, there is no appearance of that party. 3. The prayers in Ext.P1 amended original application, O.A. (Ekm) No.1389/2018, filed by the 1st respondent herein before the Tribunal are as follows (see page No.24 of this paper book):- (i) To call for the records leading to Annexure A7 and quash the same. (i) (a) To call for the records leading to Annexure A8 and quash the same to the extent it orders the applicant as the junior most Principal and directing to revert her to the post of Principal. (ii) To direct the 1st respondent to reassign the date of promotion of the applicant to the post of Associate Professor w.e.f. 26.05.2004 and to the post of Professor w.e.f. 27.05.2004 and also consequential reassignment of promotion to the post of Principal. (iii) To declare that the applicant is entitled for seniority above respondents 3 and 4 in the cadre of Professor and Principal. (iv) To issue such other orders or directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 4. (iii) To declare that the applicant is entitled for seniority above respondents 3 and 4 in the cadre of Professor and Principal. (iv) To issue such other orders or directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.” 4. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, has rendered the impugned Ext.P10 final order dated 13.12.2019 in O.A. (Ekm) No.1389/2018 whereby it has been categorically held that the impugned rejection of the claim of the applicant in the O.A. in terms of paragraph No.3 of the impugned Anx.A7 order on the ground that promotion on the date of occurrence of the vacancy is not feasible or possible and can be effected only after preparation of the select list and its notification in the gazette as per the prerogatives of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), etc. was held to be untenable, in the light of the statutory provisions contained in the KS & SSR Part-II and has held therein that in the facts and circumstances of the case the official respondents in the O.A. have gone wrong in that regard and has held that the applicant in the O.A. is entitled to secure promotion as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy to which she had a claim. (see paragraph No.27 on pages 21 & 22 of Ext.P10). It was also held and declared by the Tribunal in paragraph No.31 of Ext.P10 that the original applicant is eligible and entitled to be granted the reassignment of the date of promotion to the post of Associate Professor with effect from 26.05.2004 and to the post of Professor with effect from 27.05.2004 and for consequential reassignment of date of promotion to the post of Principal and the impugned order at Anx.A8 to the extent it had been directed to revert the applicant in the post of Principal allegedly to a junior post, has also been set aside. In that view of the mater the Tribunal has thus allowed the main plea of the applicant and had directed the competent authority of the State Government in the Health & Family Welfare Department to pass fresh orders in the light of the abovesaid findings rendered by he Tribunal and directed that the applicants shall be reassigned her correct position in the respective seniority lists also and orders should be passed in that regard within two months, etc. It is this final order at Ext.P10 rendered by the Tribunal that is under challenge at the instance of the State of Kerala and the Director of Medical Education in the original petition, who are the petitioners in this original petition. 5. We have heard the parties in extenso and also gone through the verdict of the Tribunal. 6. The Tribunal has exhaustively dealt with the facts and circumstances of this case. So, there is no necessity for us to get into the factual details of this case except to state the core of the case as laid down in Anx.A3 proceedings dated 16.06.2017, issued by the Director of Medical Education, Government of Kerala, wherein it has been categorically held that the applicant is entitled to be given reassignment of the date of promotion as Associate Professor with effect from 27.06.2004 and as Professor from 27.05.2004 and the said recommendations has been made by none other than the Director of Medical Education, Government of Kerala, who is the head of the Department concerned to the competent authority of the State Government in the Health & Family Welfare Department. 7. For the sake of completeness it may be profitable to extract the relevant contents of Anx.A3 proceedings dated 16.06.2017 issued by the Director of Medical Education, which reads as follows (see paged 30 & 31 of this paper book):- IN OTHER LANGUAGE 7. There is no necessity to translate the Malayalam contents in Anx.A3 in the English language for the simple reason that the gist of the contents of Anx.A3 is to the effect that the original applicant is entitled to be given reassignment of the dates of promotion as Associate Professor with effect from 27.06.2004 and as Professor from 27.05.2004. One of the main contentions urged by the official respondents in the O.A. was to the effect that the process of consideration for regular promotion by the DPC, as statutorily required by the provisions contained in Rule 28 of KS & SSR is quite time consuming and it cannot be feasible to effectuate the consideration by the DPC immediately on reference of the vacancy and that various exigencies in the administration may waive the matter with the result that the DPC consideration make a delay and these are all matters within the prerogatives of the departmental authorities as to the DPC consideration which is the statutory authority, etc. This was one of the main contentions urged by the official respondents to reject the claim of the petitioner for reassignment of promotion to the post of as Associate Professor and Professor, as shown in Anx.A3. 8. The Tribunal, after consideration of the various factual details and also after going by the statutory provision governing the field held that the matter in that regard is covered by the statutory provisions contained in Rule 28(b)(i) (4)(a) of KS & SSR, Part-II, wherein it is mandated that select lists shall be prepared during a calendar year, for the vacancies estimated to arise in the next calendar year. The Tribunal held that this is the statutory mandate and therefore, the contentions of the official respondents in the O.A. to the effect that decision on the eligibility for promotion is the prerogative of the DPC eventhough a vacancy was in existence, cannot hold good. The Tribunal held that it may be true that the completion of various formalities in the administrative level and the delay in finalising the select list by the DPC may be there. But such delay in completing the administrative formalities and in finalising the select list by the DPC cannot adversely and detrimentally affect the statutory eligibility and entitlement of a person for promotion, in tune with the date of occurrence of vacancy. Further, the Tribunal has also noted that it has been mandated in Rule 28(b)(i)(4)(d) and Rule 28(b)(i) (10) of KS & SSR, Part-II that the claim of an incumbent for promotion has to be adjudged and reckoned with reference to the crucial conditions as on the date of occurrence of vacancy. It has also been held by a series of rulings of this Court including Full Bench decisions as in James Thomas v. Chief Justice [1997 KLT 622 (FB)] and in Varghese v. State of Kerala [ 1981 KLT 458 (FB)] that the time of occurrence of the vacancy is the most relevant and crucial aspect of the matter for deciding the issues of promotion and not the time when the order of promotion is actually passed. This aspect of the matter has also been dealt with in detail in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case in M.L. Joseph Francis v. Thomas P. Joseph [ 2007 (3) KLT 724 (DB)] wherein it has been reiterated that the claim of an incumbent for promotion has to be adjudged and reckoned with reference to the conditions or state of affairs as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy. In that view of the matter the Tribunal has held that the statute makes it clear that it is a very important mandate to be followed by the DPC that the crucial aspect is regarding the date of occurrence of vacancy and therefore, the right of a person for promotion is as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy. It is on this basis that the Tribunal has held in paragraph No.27 of Ext.P10 final order that the impugned view taken by the official respondents as per paragraph No.3 of Anx.A7 rejection order to the effect that promotion on the very date of occurrence of vacancy may not be feasible possible and it can be effectuated only after preparation of select list and its notification in the gazette, etc., cannot deny the statutory right of a person for grant of promotion with effect from the date of occurrence of the vacancy. Even if administrative delay has occurred the date assigned should be as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy. In this regard, it may also relevant to note that the Delhi High Court has rendered a recent judgment on 08.03.2021 in W.P.(C) No.1083/2018, which also dealt with issues of promotion to the teaching post of Professor, Associate Professor and it has been held therein that promotion of a candidate would take effect from the date of eligibility and not on the date of interview or date of consideration as per the Carer Advancement Scheme (CAS) governed by the Rules and Regulations., etc. 9. 9. After hearing both sides, we are of the considered opinion that the said view rendered by the Tribunal cannot be branded as illegal or unreasonable, in any view of the matter, going by the statutory mandate contained in Rule 28 of KS & SSR Part-II as well as the case law governing the field based on the decisions of the Full Bench as well as of the Division Bench of this Court, as stated hereinabove. 10. The next issue considered by the Tribunal is as to whether there is any legal bar in granting date of promotion in a case like this. On facts, the Tribunal has found that a vacancy of Professor was indeed available in the discipline of the original applicant, as evident from the pleadings of the applicant as well as the crucial report of the Director of Medical Education as per Anx.A3 mentioned hereinabove. So also the Tribunal has found that the petitioner is entitled to be reassigned for promotion to the post of Associate Professor with effect from 26.05.2004, going by the date of occurrence of the vacancy as well as her eligibility conditions. Accordingly the Tribunal has concluded that, as a matter of fact, the vacancy in the post of Professor has been existent from 01.07.2003 and the applicant was promoted on 27.11.2006 and that going through her eligibility conditions and other requirements, she ought to have been promoted to the post of Professor with effect from 27.05.2004, as mentioned in Anx.A3 report of the Director of Medical Education. In the light of these aspects that the Tribunal has held that denial of right of the applicant for such reassigned dates of promotion in the post of Associate Professor and Professor would amount to flagrant violation of the constitutional right to be considered for promotion in accordance with law as guaranteed in Article 16 of the Constitution of India and hence found that the contra conditions as made out in the impugned Anx.A7 is liable to be set aside. 11. As regards the 4th respondent in the original application/the 3rd respondent herein, the Tribunal has made certain observations in paragraph No.32 but has left those matters to be in the province of the consideration of the State Government as presumably, the 4th respondent in the O.A. was not an applicant in the litigative proceedings, but only a respondent therein. 12. As regards the 4th respondent in the original application/the 3rd respondent herein, the Tribunal has made certain observations in paragraph No.32 but has left those matters to be in the province of the consideration of the State Government as presumably, the 4th respondent in the O.A. was not an applicant in the litigative proceedings, but only a respondent therein. 12. A reading of the impugned final order of the Tribunal at Ext.P10, more particularly paragraph No.32 thereof, would make it clear that the directions and orders passed by the Tribunal therein in favour of the original applicant will not by itself, in any manner, prejudice the claims of the 4th respondent. 13. It has to be borne in mind that the contesting parties in this case, viz., applicant, the 3rd respondent in the O.A., and the 4th respondent in the O.A. belong to three different disciplines in the Dental College service. It is after the promotion of the eligible incumbents to the post of Professor that the issue regarding promotion of Principal is considered based on the seniority and other requirements in the category of Professor. 14. It is in the light of these aspects that the Tribunal has granted the reliefs in the instant original application as per Ext.P10, as mentioned hereinabove. 15. In view of the aspects discussed hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the said views of the Tribunal cannot be said to be illegal, unreasonable, improper or against the statutory rules concerned. Sufficient grounds for invoking the public law remedy of judicial review and superintendence has not been made out in the instant case. Hence, the verdict of the Tribunal at Ext.P10, in favour of the applicant, does not deserve interdiction at the hands of this Court in exercise of the powers conferred under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. However, we note that the time limit for compliance of the directions as per Ext.P10 dated 13.12.2019 as stipulated by the Tribunal was 2 months. That the present OP(KAT) was filed before this Court on 02.12.2020. Hence, taking note of the pendency of this O.P. it is ordered that the petitioners herein/official respondents in the original application shall comply with the directions and orders passed by this Tribunal, within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. That the present OP(KAT) was filed before this Court on 02.12.2020. Hence, taking note of the pendency of this O.P. it is ordered that the petitioners herein/official respondents in the original application shall comply with the directions and orders passed by this Tribunal, within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. With these observations and directions, the above original petition will stand dismissed.