ORDER : ARUN MONGA, J. 1. Grievance of the petitioners in the above titled two petitions, who are members of the teaching faculty at Government Medical College, Pali, Rajasthan arises out their non-consideration for the promotional post of Assistant Professor. They claim that despite their being fully eligible for the same, instead of considering them, undue advantage is being given to the direct recruits through fresh selection process. Thereby, not only petitioners have been denied their right to be considered against the promotional quota, but even otherwise unnecessary heart burn is caused by making them junior to the direct recruits. 2. The facts of the case are not disputed. In any case, succinct narrative thereof is contained in an order dated 07.09.2021 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court then presided over by Dinesh Mehta, J., who speaking for this Court observed as below :- “1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the action of the Governing Body of the respondents, who are going to fill up the posts of Assistant Professor by direct recruitment pursuant to advertisements dated 29.7.2021 and 5.8.2021. 2. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioners invited Court’s attention towards relevant provisions and pointed out that the respondents are required to fill up at least 50% of the posts by way of promotion, whereas they are going to fill up the posts by way of direct recruitment and thus, their rights will be seriously impaired if the subject recruitment is allowed to continue. 3. Learned counsel invited Court’s attention towards minimum qualification fixed by the norms of the Medical Council of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MCI’) and submitted that as per the MCI norms, only one year’s teaching experience is required, which the petitioners are having. 4. Learned counsel argued that for the purpose of promotion, Rule 24 of the Employment Rules (Recruitment and other Conditions), 2017 for Rajasthan Medical Education Society, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2017) is applicable, according to which, the Medical Teachers Promotion Policy is required to be based on MCI norms. According to him, the petitioners are possessing requisite qualification, mentioned in Schedule-I. 5. Mr. Kailash Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State invited Court’s attention towards sub-rule (7) of Rule 25 of the Rules of 2017, which provides as under: “(7). According to him, the petitioners are possessing requisite qualification, mentioned in Schedule-I. 5. Mr. Kailash Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State invited Court’s attention towards sub-rule (7) of Rule 25 of the Rules of 2017, which provides as under: “(7). Senior Demonstrator – Senior Demonstrator shall be granted promotion to Assistant Professor after completion of 4 years of service and fulfilling the qualification for Assistant Professor as per MCI norms subject to vacancy of the post of assistant professor.“ 6. With the aid of sub-rule (7) of Rule 25 of the Rules of 2017, learned counsel submitted that so far as promotion from the post of Senior Demonstrator to the post of Assistant Professor is concerned, a Senior Demonstrator is required to have at least 4 years’ experience in service and none of the petitioners have gained 4 years’ experience on the post of Senior Demonstrator and thus, they are not eligible for promotion. 7. A specific stand has been taken by the State that the State recruiting agency has applied its mind towards sub-rule (7) of Rule 25 of the Rules of 2017 and having found that none of the inservice Senior Demonstrators are eligible for promotion, instead of filling up the vacancies by way of promotion, they proceeded to go for direct recruitment and issued advertisement(s) for filling up the post by way of direct recruitment. 8. In relation to petitioners’ argument flowing from Rule 24 of the Rules of 2017, learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that this is the minimum educational qualification or requirement, but in the face of requirement set by the respondents in the form of Rule 25(7) of the Rules of 2017 the requirement as per MCI Norms which is the minimum requirement, is of little avail to the petitioners. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon prima facie consideration of the matter, this Court is of the view that the petitioners are not even eligible for promotion at present. The promotion from the post of Senior Demonstrator to the post of Assistant Professor is required to be made as per sub-rule (7) of Rule 25 of the Rules of 2017. The promotion from the post of Senior Demonstrator to the post of Assistant Professor is required to be made as per sub-rule (7) of Rule 25 of the Rules of 2017. May be, that the petitioners are eligible to be appointed as Assistant Professor having possessed the requisite qualification, but the same per-se does not entitle them to stall recruitment process when they are not eligible/entitled for promotion under the Rules of 2017. 10. The employer can’t be made to wait. Filling up of the vacant posts is the need of the hour. Proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2017 clearly permits the respondents to do so. 11. Heard. 12. Admit. Issue notice. Mr. Kailash Choudhary, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. 13. List this case for hearing in the month of January, 2022. 14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the stay petition is disposed of with a clarification that any appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in the department of Physiology and Bio Chemistry made pursuant to the recruitment notifications dated 29.7.2021 and 5.8.2021 shall remain subject to outcome of the present writ petition.” 3. Apropos the proceedings before this Court have been pending for final adjudication. It would also be apposite to refer to an order dated 18.02.2022 passed by Division Bench of this Court while disposing of an intra court appeal arising out of the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is as below :- “Heard. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.” 4. Before adverting to the claim of the petitioners on merits, it needs to be emphasized that promotion is a necessary incidence of service which keeps an official motivated to render his work. It also creates a healthy atmosphere amongst the coordinates to compete with each other so as to be duly rewarded with promotion depending upon their service record, which is earned by them. 5. It also creates a healthy atmosphere amongst the coordinates to compete with each other so as to be duly rewarded with promotion depending upon their service record, which is earned by them. 5. In this context, reference may be had to Supreme Court judgment rendered in Dr. Ms. O.Z. Hussain v. Union of India & Ors. : AIR 1990 SC 311 , wherein it is held that the State is under obligation to not deny the promotional avenues to its officials and it is imperative on its part to take appropriate steps, in case, eligible candidates from the feeder post are available in accordance with the promotion quota as per the Service Rules. Relevant of the said judgment is as below :- “This Court had on more than one occasion, pointed out that provision for promotion increase sufficiency of the public service while stagnation reduces efficiency and makes the service ineffective. Promotion is thus a normal incidence of service. There too is no justification why while similarly placed officers in other Ministries would have the benefit of promotion, the non-medical ‘A’ group scientists in the establishment of Director General of Health Services would be deprived of such advantage. In a welfare State, it is necessary that there should be an efficient public service and, therefore, it should have been the obligation of the Ministry of Health to attend to the representations of the Council and its members and provide promotional avenues for the said category of officers. It is, therefore, necessary that on the model of rules framed by the Ministry of Science & Technology with such alternations as may be necessary, appropriate rules be framed providing promotional avenue for the ‘A’ category scientists in the non-medical wing of the Directorate.” 6. In the aforesaid backdrop, let us now advert to the specifics of the instant case. 7. Before dealing with the same, the relevant Service Rules need to be looked into. For ready reference, same are reproduced herein-below :- Employment Rules (Recruitment and other Conditions), 2017 : “24. Criteria, Eligibility and Procedure for Promotion.- I. For Medical Teachers Promotion policy will be based on MCI Norms. On promotion fixation benefit equal to one annual increase shall be allowed. II. For ready reference, same are reproduced herein-below :- Employment Rules (Recruitment and other Conditions), 2017 : “24. Criteria, Eligibility and Procedure for Promotion.- I. For Medical Teachers Promotion policy will be based on MCI Norms. On promotion fixation benefit equal to one annual increase shall be allowed. II. On completion of 10 years service by the non-teaching staff of grade-II, they will be designated as grade-I on the same post and allowed fixation benefit equal to one annual increase on promotion. This promotion will be in lieu of ACP-I. III. The Governing Body may issue instruction for provisionally dealing with the promotions, appointments or other ancillary matters in an equitable and fair manner of persons who may be under suspension, or against whom departmental proceedings is under progress, at the time promotions are considered to a post to which they are eligible or would have been eligible but for such suspension or pendency of such enquiry or proceedings. 25. Promotion under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) Scheme.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 24, holders of the posts of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor and Professor shall be granted promotions under the Assured Career Progression Scheme respectively to the posts of Associate Professor, Professor and Senior Professor, as under:- Sr. No Promotion under ACP Scheme Number of years of regular service required for promotion From To 1. Assistant Professor Associate Professor By promotion from amongst substantively appointed Assistant Professors of the concerned specialty who have acquired experience as prescribed by MCI for promotion to the said post. 2. Associate Professor Professor By promotion from Associate Professors of the concerned specialty who have acquired experience as prescribed by MCI for promotion to the said post. 3. Professor Senior Professor By promotion from Professors of the concerned specialty who have acquired experience as prescribed by MCI for promotion to the said post. (2) Promotion under ACP Scheme shall be granted irrespective of vacancy. The staff under General Wing shall be granted II & III ACP after completion of 20 & 30 years service respectively. On grant of II and III ACP equal to one annual increase shall be allowed for each ACP. (3) For the purpose of this rule, regular service means and includes service by a person on the appointment after regular selection in accordance with the provisions contained in these rules for the post. On grant of II and III ACP equal to one annual increase shall be allowed for each ACP. (3) For the purpose of this rule, regular service means and includes service by a person on the appointment after regular selection in accordance with the provisions contained in these rules for the post. The period of service rendered on ad- hoc/urgent temporary basis shall not be counted as the regular service. In other words, the period of service which is countable for seniority shall only be counted as regular service. A regular employee of the society, if he works on deputation to other institutes outside the society, for more than six months, such period shall not be counted for promotion purposes. (4) Members of the service who are entitled for benefit of ACP Scheme (Administrative Wing, Clinical Wing & Non Clinical Wing of Schedule -I) shall not be eligible to seek promotion under the provisions of rule 24 of these rules. On grant of ACP fixation benefit equal to one annual increase shall be allowed. (5) The Appointing Authority shall on 1st April of every year prepare a list of the eligible members of the service for ACP during the year who possess the qualifications and experience prescribed for the respective post in Column No.5 and 7 of Schedule-I. Service record of preceding 5 years shall be taken in to consideration for granting ACP, as if it is a case of promotion. (6) The Committee constituted under rule 23 shall screen the persons for adjudging their suitability for granting benefit under ACP Scheme. (7) Senior Demonstrator- Senior Demonstrator shall be granted promotion to Assistant Professor after completion of 4 years of service and fulfilling the qualification for Assistant Professor as per MCI norms subject to vacancy of the post of assistant professor. Minimum Qualification for Teachers in Medical Institutions Regulations, 1998 : “3. In Schedule I, Clause 6 shall be substituted as :- “The teachers in a medical college or institution having a total of 8 years teaching experience out of which at least 4 years teaching experience as Assistant Professor with two research publication in indexed journals gained after obtaining postgraduate degree shall be recognized post graduate teacher in broad specialties. In Schedule I, Clause 6 shall be substituted as :- “The teachers in a medical college or institution having a total of 8 years teaching experience out of which at least 4 years teaching experience as Assistant Professor with two research publication in indexed journals gained after obtaining postgraduate degree shall be recognized post graduate teacher in broad specialties. In case of super specialties only those teachers who possess 6 years teaching experience out of which at least 2 years teaching experience as Assistant Professor gained after obtaining the higher specialty degree shall be recognized post graduate teacher.” I. Board Specialties (MD/MS) Posts Aca. Qual. Teaching & Research Exp. Professor / Addl. Professor (8 year of Post PG Experience) A post graduate qualification MD/ MS in the concerned subject and as per the TEQ Regulation Associate Professor in the subject for 3 years in a permitted/approved/ recognized medical college / institution with 4 Research Publications in Indexed Journal on Cumulative basis with minimum of 2 Research Publication during the tenure of Associate Professor as Ist Author or as corresponding author. Associate Professor (5 year Post PG experience) A post graduate qualification MD/ MS in the concerned subject and as per the TEQ Regulation As Assistant Professor in the subject for 4 years in a permitted/approved/recognized medical college / institution with 2 Research Publication in Indexed Journals as Ist Author or as corresponding author. Assistant Professor A post graduate qualification MD/ MS in the concerned subject and as per the TEQ Regulations 3 years Junior Resident in a recognized medical college in the concerned subject and one year as Senior Resident in the concerned subject in a recognized medical college. 8. A perusal of the above shows that the eligibility for being considered on the promotional post of Assistant Professor, a Senior Demonstrator must have one year of work experience. Conceded position of the department is that petitioners were appointed in service on 31.05.2017 & 20.08.2018, respectively. They had, thus, rendered more than three years of service as on the relevant date when the direct recruits were appointed. Petitioners were fully eligible for being considered having rendered more than one year’s of service on the cut-off date. 9. Conceded position of the department is that petitioners were appointed in service on 31.05.2017 & 20.08.2018, respectively. They had, thus, rendered more than three years of service as on the relevant date when the direct recruits were appointed. Petitioners were fully eligible for being considered having rendered more than one year’s of service on the cut-off date. 9. Yet, under some erroneous assumption that since Rule 25, which is applicable for according the benefit of ACP, envisages that minimum 04 years of service has to be rendered for being accorded the said benefit, the petitioners were held disentitled for being considered on the promotional post. 10. I am unable to persuade myself to agree with the stand taken by the department. What had to be seen was the applicability of Rule 24, which is specifically applicable to the petitioners and not Rule 25. Pertinently, Rule 25 is more of a palliative measure in the event of promotional avenues not being available for no fault of a serving official. 11. The department has been adopted a completely lopsided approach to deny the petitioners of the benefit of their eligibility. 12. In the premise and as an upshot of my discussion, both the above titled writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to declare the vacancies on the promotional quota with effect from the year 2021 when the advertisement was issued for direct recruitment without determining the number of vacancies against the promotional quota. 13. In the parting, I may also hasten to add here that it is not in dispute that on as many as eight occasions advertisements were issued by the respondents for direct recruitment on the post of Assistant Professors in the past, without determining the vacancies under the promotion quota as per the prescribed rules. 14. Be that as it may, since the grievance of the petitioners arises out of the recruitment process carried out in the year 2021, the order in the instant writ petition is being confined only to that year. 15. Vide an interim order, it was also directed that the selection of the direct recruits is subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. 15. Vide an interim order, it was also directed that the selection of the direct recruits is subject to the final outcome of the writ petition. It is accordingly ordered and made clear that subject to the outcome of the necessary exercise to be carried out by the department, and the petitioners being found meritorious with effect from the date the direct recruits were appointed, they shall be accorded benefit of promotion by according them inter-se seniority vis-a-vis the direct recruits as on the date they were appointed. However, the petitioners shall not be entitled to retrospective financial benefits of such promotion, but they shall be entitled to the notional benefits as well as seniority arising out of re-determination of their date of appointment on the promotional post. 16. All pending application(s), if any, also disposed of.