WA 7/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE A K GOSWAMI (Goswami, J) The appellant along with 2 others had approached this Court by f iling WP(C) No 252/2009 with the prayer to direct the respondent Nos 1 and 2 to re-examine / cancel the gradation list for promotion to the post of Headmaster a nd/or to issue a direction to prepare school-wise gradation list by placing thei r seniority on the basis of their original appointments. Since similar issues we re involved in some other writ petitions, all these writ petitions were heard t ogether, and vide judgment and order dated 23.11.2010, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. Hence, this appeal. 2. The brief facts leading to filing of the writ petition are that the appe llant joined SC Girls’ Senior Basic School as Assistant Teacher on 20.7.1984. Th ough not very clear at what point of time, it would appear that he was subsequen tly serving in GC MV School. According to him, being the seniormost teacher in t he school, he was allowed to continue as in-charge Headmaster after the death of the earlier incumbent in GC MV School. The appellant along with others had sub mitted representation dated 28.11.2007 pointing out the anomalies and the infrac tion to Rule 2 of the notification dated 30.8.86 while preparing the provisional gradation list dated 21.11.2007 circulated by the District Elementary Education Officer, Hailakandi. However, without taking into consideration his original da te of appointment, his name was wrongly placed at serial No 46 in the final grad ation list dated 10.6.08. It was also the contention of the appellant in the wri t petition that the senior teachers of the school had submitted their No Object ion Certificate for allowing the appellant to continue as the Headmaster of th e school. In spite of such ’ No Objection Certificate ’ furnished by the teache rs of the school, one Md Manjur Ali Laskar was appointed as the Headmaster of th e school. The writ petition was structured broadly on the aforesaid factual matr ix praying for directions as aforesaid. 3. As the other 2 writ petitioners had chosen not to prefer an appeal, thi s Court does not consider it necessary to recite the material particulars with r egard to said 2 writ petitioners. 4. The respondent No 2 in the writ petition had filed an affidavit stating that the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, vide communication dated 28.6. 2006 issued directions to initiate the process of selection for promotion to the post of Headmaster of ME / MV / MEM following the government norms as per gover nment notification dated 30.8.96 read with notification dated 20.8.1990. In term s of the aforesaid communication, the District Level Selection Committee is to p repare Sub-Divisionwise gradation list of teachers on the basis of seniority cum efficiency and the selection of teachers for the post of Headmaster is to be ma de on the basis of districtwise seniority instead of schoolwise seniority. It wa s also brought on record that the seniority of the incumbents would be considere d only from the date of their regular appointments / regularization / receiving time scale of pay and whose services have been regularized with effect from 1986 . It is also stated that on the basis of gradation list dated 10.6.08, the Distr ict Level Selection Committee had finalized the selection list and submitted the same to the office of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam vide letter dated 10.6.08 issued by the District Elementary Education Officer, Hailakandi. T hereafter, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, vide order dated 6.12.0 8 had promoted the senior most teachers to the post of Headmaster against the ex isting vacancies. 5. The learned single Judge on consideration of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on records, observed that the records had revealed that the objections received fro m the teachers in respect of gradation list in question were duly considered and the District Level Selection Committee had duly followed the procedure for prom otion to the post of Headmaster and the petitioners including the appellant havi ng duly participated in the entire selection process, they cannot now turn arou nd to claim that the gradation list did not correctly reflect their position due to omission and commission in the preparation of the gradation list. 6. We have heard Mr B C Das, learned senior counsel for the appellant and M r VM Thomas, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department. 7. At the hearing, Mr Das, learned senior counsel for the appellant has sub mitted that the name of one Md Manjir Ali Lakar has been wrongly placed at Sl 13 of the gradation list dated 10.6.08 and he is not senior to the appellant. He d raws our attention to the Block / District Level seniority cum merit list of the teachers with particular reference to Katlichara Education Block to impress upo n us that the name of the said Manjir Ali Laskar did not appear in the said list . He also draws the attention of the Court to a letter dated 19.1.2007 addressed to the District Elementary Education Officer, Hailakandi, by the aforesaid Md M anjir Ali Laskar and two others stating that, they being the senior most teacher s of GC MV School, have no objection, if appellant was allowed to take over char ge of the Headmaster of the school as well as if he is promoted to the post of H eadmaster. The learned senior counsel has submitted that though urged, the No O bjection Certificate furnished by the aforesaid seniormost teachers were not ta ken into consideration by the learned single Judge and, as such, the impugned ju dgment is vitiated. 8. Mr Thomas, learned Standing Counsel for Education Department, on the oth er hand, has submitted that in view of categorical finding recorded by the lear ned single Judge, there is no infirmity in the preparation of the gradation list in question and no interference is called for by the writ appellate Court. 9. Admittedly, when the appellant had approached this Court, Md Manjir Ali Laskar was already given appointment to the post of Headmaster. In the writ peti tion, although number of prayers seeking relief, as indicated above had been mad e, there was no challenge to the appointment / promotion order of Md Manjir Ali Laskar to the post of Headmaster. Further, he was also not made party respondent to the writ proceeding, though granting of relief, as prayed for, had the poten tial to cause prejudice to the said Md Manjir Ali Laskar. We have noticed that M d Manjir Ali Laskar has been arrayed as party respondent No 6 in this appeal, th at too, without any application to bring him on record. We are not considering t he permissibility or otherwise in arraying someone as party respondent who was o mitted to be made a party respondent in the writ proceeding as the same is not c onsidered essential for the purpose of disposal of this appeal. 10. The reliance placed by the learned senior counsel on the No Objection C ertificate , would, on the contrary, go against the case of the appellant, inasm uch as, it was stated that the signatories including Md Manjir Ali Laskar are s enior most teachers of the school. This No Objection Certificate , to the exte nt, belies the claim of the appellant that Md Manjir Ali Laskar is not senior to the appellant. In fact, the thrust of the argument of Mr Das is that Md Manjir Ali Laskar having given No Objection Certificate to enable the appellant to be come the Headmaster of the school, the promotion / appointment given to Md Manji r Ali Laskar, was, per se, illegal. The plea of the appellant that he is the sen ior most Assistant Teacher in the school and the plea that in view of No Object ion Certificate given by Md Manjir Ali Laskar, he is legally entitled to be pro moted as Headmaster, are mutually inconsistent and cannot go together. 11. It has been noticed that the promotion is to be effected on the basis of districtwise seniority instead of schoolwise seniority. If that be so, grant of No Objection Certificate by senior persons in the school to allow their junio r to function as Headmaster in the school, pales into insignificance. As noted a bove, Md Manjir Ali Laskar figures in the gradation list of MV school teachers f or promotion to the post of Headmaster in the district of Hailakandi at Sl 13 wh ereas the name of appellant figures at Sl 46. No right accrues to the appellant, in the facts and circumstances of the case, to claim promotion, on the basis of such No Objection Certificate and, therefore, the authorities are at liberty to proceed in the matter of promotion on the basis of districtwise seniority. 12. We also do not find merit in the contention of the appellant that the na me of Md Manjir Ali Laskar having not been reflected in the Block Level Seniorit y cum Merit list of teachers, placing him at Sl 13 in the gradation list dated 1 0.6.08 in arbitrary and irrational. According to the appellant himself, the said list was not the final gradation list. We do not know the circumstances in whic h his name had not figured in the said list. It is quite possible that his name had been dropped inadvertently and subsequently, the mistake was corrected. The fact that Md Manjir Ali Laskar was working in the school of the appellant is not in dispute in view of the reliance placed by the appellant on the No Objection Certificate . It is stated at the Bar that Md Manjir Ali Laskar had already ass umed charge of the Headmaster of GC MV school. 13. In view of what has been stated above, we see no reason to interfere wit h the findings of the learned single Judge. Consequently, the appeal being devoi d of any merit, the same is dismissed. 14. No costs.