WP(C) 1516/2005 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY None appears for the petitioner when the case is called. Mr. SK Das, learned sta nding counsel, Education Department appears for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 and th e private respondent No.6 is represented by Md. Giash Uddin, learned counsel. 2. The petitioner challenges the order dated 17.9.2004 (Annexure-H) of the District Elementary Education Officer, Nagaon, whereby the respondent No.6 was p romoted as Headmaster at his parents school i.e. Pub Garubat Padumani ME Madrass a School. The petitioner claims to be senior to the respondent No.6 and accordin gly contends that he should have been considered for promotion instead of the re spondent No.6. 3. However it is submitted by Md. Giash Uddin, learned counsel that the pet itioner was transferred at his own request from the Simlaipathar ME Madrassa Sch ool to the Pub Garubat Padumani ME Madrassa School on 12.3.2005 and accordingly he will not carry his seniority in the previous school to the transferred school . 4. The respondent No.6 in his counter affidavit has enclosed the select lis t of Headmasters prepared for the schools in Kathiatoli Block. It appears theref rom that the petitioner was selected for the post of Headmaster in his former sc hool, i.e. the Simlaipathar ME Madrassa School, whereas the private respondent w as selected for promotion to the Pub Garubat Padumani ME Madrassa School. Accord ingly it is argued that the petitioner can’t be appointed as a Headmaster in a S chool, for which he was not selected. 5. The respondent No.6 is also claimed to be the seniormost teacher of Pub Garubat Padumani ME Madrassa School on the basis of the communication dated 21.5 .2005 of the District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO), Nagaon, where it is r eflected that the respondent No.6 is the senior-most teacher of the Pub Garubat Padumani ME Madrassa School. 6. Mr. SK Das, learned departmental counsel refers to the Government notifi cation dated 30th August, 1986, to show that the post of Headmaster for ME Madra ssa are to be filled up through promotion, on the criterion of seniority cum eff iciency, on recommendation of the District Level Selection Committee (DLSC) and Sub-Division wise gradation list, is to be prepared for each Institute. Pointing out that the respondent No.6 is the seniormost teacher in Pub Garubat Padumani ME Madrassa School and was recommended by the DLSC, Mr. Das submits that interfe rence would not be justified with the impugned promotion order. 7. Although justification for promotion of the respondent No.6 to the post of the Headmaster in Pub Garubat Padumani ME Madrassa School are found to be sub stantial, after taking note of all the submissions made on behalf of the respond ents and considering that the petitioner is unrepresented, the case is dismissed for non-prosecution, rather than on merit. It is ordered accordingly.