WA 403/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T. VAIPHEI After hearing some arguments learned counsel for the writ petitioners says that the writ petitioners are only seeking promotion to the post of Lecturer as per t he Dental Council of India Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007. It is categoric ally stated that the writ petitioners are not seeking promotion to the post of R eader as per the Dental Council of India Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007. The case proceeded before the learned Single Judge on the basis that the writ petitioners were seeking promotion to the post of Reader under the Dental Council of India Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007. Since the entire case proceeded on a factually incorrect basis, we have put it to learned counsel for the appellants to consider the case the case of th e writ petitioners for promotion to the post of Lecturer as per the Dental Counc il of India Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007 and in accordance with those Re gulations. Learned counsel for the appellants has no objection to this course of ac tion. We make it very clear that the Dental Council of India Revised BDS Cours e Regulations, 2007 has not used any expression, such as, Associate Professor an d Assistant Professor. The only posts that are mentioned are Principal, Dean, Pr ofessor, Reader, Lecturer and Tutor. Learned counsel for the appellants says that the needful, that is, consideration of the writ petitioners to the post of Lecturer as per the Dental Council of I ndia Revised BDS Course Regulations, 2007, will be done within a period of four weeks. No further orders are required to be passed. The writ appeal is disposed of on the above terms.