WP(C) 1306/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. K. SHARMA Heard Mr. B. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.7. I have also h eard A.D. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, who express ed his helplessness in the matter in absence of any counter affidavit. He submit s that in absence of any counter affidavit filed by the respondents, he is not i n a position to make any submission. In view of the above, this Court is left with no other option than to di spose of the writ petition on the basis of the submissions made by the learned c ounsel for the petitioner and the respondent No.7. According to the petitioner, he being the senior most teacher of Dhula High School in the District of Darrang , is best suited to occupy the post of Head Master. As against the appointment o f the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in the year 1975, the respondent No. 7 was appointed in 1984. Thus, admittedly, the petitioner is senior to the respondent No.7. In addition, he was also allowed to hold the charge of the post of Head M aster from 17.7.2003. The petitioner was placed under suspension on 20.2.2007 on the basis of certain allegations. The order of suspension was revoked and the petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated 29.7.2008. Such reinstatement of the peti tioner was on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. However, Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 disputes the same. Mr. B. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is n othing adverse against the petitioner and in the enquiry proceeding, nothing cou ld be established against him. However, Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondent No.7 disputes the same. According to him, the enquiry proceeding is still pending against the petitioner. However, according to Mr. B. Goswami, lear ned counsel for the petitioner, disputes the same. Mr. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in fact the respondent No.7 is involved in criminal and departmental proceedings. R eferring to the statements made in paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 of MC No. 377/2011 , Mr. Goswami submits that inspite of arrest of the respondent No.7 by the Polic e in connection with Dhola PS case No. 264/2009 U/s. 406/420 IPC and pendency of both criminal and disciplinary proceedings, the respondent No.7 cannot have bee n reinstated revoking suspension and allowed charge of Head Master. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed off directing the Di rector of Secondary Education, Assam to look into the matter and decide the issu e in accordance with law and taking into account the attending facts and circums tances. Let an appropriate decision be taken by the said Director of Secondary E ducation, Assam, as expeditiously as possible but at any rate not later then 15. 9.2011. Mr. B. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the peri od of suspension of the petitioner has not been regularized. The Director of Sec ondary Education, Assam, shall also look into the matter and pass appropriate or der with the time stipulated above. At this stage, Mr. A.D. Choudhury, learned Standing Counsel, Education D epartment, submits that instead of Director of Secondary Education, the Court ma y direct the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education Departm ent, to look into the grievance of the parties. In view of such submission, the matter is returned to the Departmental C ommissioner and Secretary who may pass appropriate order upon consultation with the Director of Secondary Education, Assam within the stipulated time i.e. 15.9. 2011. The writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be no order as to cost s.