JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. This appeal is directed against the interim order dated 07.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the application for grant of interim relief has been disposed of in the manner that the selections would be subject to final outcome of the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that though the petitioners sought a direction for 50% of the vacancies available on the post of assistant Professor should not be allowed to be filled up by the direct recruitment, the learned Single Judge swayed by the provision contained in sub-rule (7) of Rule 25 of the Employment (Recruitment and other Conditions) Rules, 2017 (for short, 'the Rules of 2017') holding that the petitioners are not eligible unless they complete four years of working experience, has denied the relief as prayed for in the application. Referring to the provisions contained in Rule 24 of the Rules of 2017 and the schedule appended to the rules as also the minimum standards of qualifications and experience as prescribed by the Medical Council of India, it is argued that the appellants are eligible for being considered for promotion without their being any requirement of them having completed four years of service as Senior Demonstrator. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the learned Single Judge after considering the matter, at length, has passed a detailed order recording prima facie satisfaction in the matter with regard to eligibility aspect and the process of selection has been made subject to final outcome of the writ petition. 5. On prima facie consideration we find that the issue pending before the learned Single is with regard to the interpretation of various provisions contained in the recruitment rules including provisions contained in Rules 24 and 25 and the provisions contained in the schedule. The issue whether the petitioners without having acquired experience of four years would be entitled to be considered for promotion under Rule 24 or not and whether they could be denied such consideration under the said rules only for the reason that in times to come, they will be eligible for being considered for promotion under the aCP scheme as provided under Rule 25 of the Rules. 6. We find that a serious issue has been raised which is pending consideration. 6. We find that a serious issue has been raised which is pending consideration. The learned Single Judge has bestowed his consideration after hearing the parties at length and recording their respective contentions, which are reflected from the impugned order, the discretion which has been exercised by the learned Single Judge after giving detailed hearing and considering the aspects at the interim stage, it does not allow us to interfere with the order in writ appeal. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. 7. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.