WP(C) 1932/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA The petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure-I order dated 07.05.2009 passed by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam by which it has been held that the petitioner will rank junior to the respondent No. 4. The case of the petitioner is that his date of appointment being 12.10.84, he wo uld rank senior to the respondent No. 4 who was appointed in the graduate scale of pay w.e.f. 12.01.91. But the whole controversy is as to whether the petitione r having been appointed in the present school on transfer on 19.08.95, would be entitled to count his earlier period of service or he will get seniority w.e.f. 19.08.95 in the present school. By Annexure- B order dated 19.08.95, the petitioner was transferred from his ear lier school to the present school in public interest. Inspite of the fact that s uch transfer was in public interest, a condition was imposed that the petitioner would not be entitled to claim seniority in service over the existing teachers of the school. Annexure-B order dated 19.08.95 was followed by Annexure-C corrig endum dated 11.06.96 by which the clause They cannot claim the seniority of ser vice over the existing staff of the school was deleted. If this corrigendum is taken into account, there is no question of loss of seniority in service by the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment on 01.02.85. Be it stated he re that the actual date of joining of the petitioner in the school is 12.10.84, but the date 01.02.85 has been taken into account as the same is the date of pro vincialisation of the school. In view of the above, there cannot be any manner of doubt that the petitioner w ill be entitled to count his service from the date of initial appointment/ provi ncialisation of his service which is 01.02.85 irrespective of his transfer to th e present school by the aforesaid order dated 19.08.95. It will be pertinent to mention here that as per the provision of Assam Secondar y Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 1982, it is the cadre seniority and not school seniority which was taken into account. Rule 13 of the said Rules pr ovided that the seniority will be counted on the basis of the date of continuous appointment; date of joining and date of birth. Nothing was indicated in the R ule that an incumbent on his transfer to another school would lose his seniority . Such a condition has been imposed only in the Assam Secondary Education (Provi ncialised) Service Rules, 2003. As per the Rule 24 (iv) of the said Rules, an in cumbent upon his transfer to another school on his own request, will lose his ea rlier seniority. Thus as per the new set of Rules, it is the school seniority w hich matters unlike the aforesaid Rules of 1982 which provided for cadre seniori ty. When the transfer order dated 19.08.95 was effected, the aforesaid Rules of 1982 was holding the field and thus, even if it is contended that the petitioner was transferred on his own request, same would not entail loss of seniority. Howev er, same is not in the case with the petitioner. He was transferred in the inte rest of public service which was reflected in the order itself. The petitioner h aving been transferred in the interest of public service, the rider that he cann ot claim seniority of service over the existing staff of the school, could not have imposed. Realising the fallacy, the authority issued Annexure-C corrigendum dated 11.06.96 doing away with the said condition. The petitioner has brought on record through his affidavit in reply the applicat ion he had made on 25.08.95 opposing the condition of loss of seniority incorpor ated in the transfer order dated 19.08.95. In the said application, the petition er had specifically contended that the loss of seniority was not acceptable to h im. In the impugned order dated 07.05.09 (Annexure-I) passed by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam all the above aspects of the matter have not been taken into account. The only ground assigned towards sustaining the condition t hat he would lose his seniority is that the subsequent Annexure-C corrigendum da ted 11.03.96 cannot take away the condition imposed in the order of transfer as the corrigendum and the effect thereof is not reflected in the service book. If the particular corrigendum dated 11.03.96 is not reflected in the service book o f the petitioner, no fault can be attributed to him. The question is as to whether the condition imposed in the transfer order was de leted subsequently or not. The respondents have not disowned the Annexure-C cor rigendum dated 11.03.96 which was issued by the same very authority who had issu ed the transfer order. The condition relating to loss of seniority having been l ifted, it was incumbent on the part of the authority which passed the impugned o rder dated 07.05.09 to hold that the petitioner will be entitled to count his se niority from his initial date of appointment/ provincialisation, which is 01.02. 85. In the above context, it will be pertinent to mention here that the petitioner h as also brought on record the order dated 15.03.96 (Annexure-L to the affidavit in reply) passed by the Principal of the school. In the said order, upon a refer ence to the aforesaid corrigendum it was observed that the petitioner would be entitled to get seniority from the initial date of appointment, i.e. 01.02.85. Thus, there was reflection in the school records about the corrigendum issued by the Inspector of Schools. The authority which has passed the impugned order als o did not take into account this order passed by the Principal which forms part of the record of the school. In view of the above, the petitioner must be held to be senior to the respondent No. 4 and accordingly the impugned order dated 07.05.09 (Annexure-I) stands set aside and quashed. The petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefit s including the charge of the school. The official respondents shall pass approp riate order in this regard forthwith. The writ petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.