MC 1271/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5, who is applicant in the instant application. Also heard Mr. A.R.Sikdar, learn ed counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. By means of this application, the respondent No.5 has prayed for vacatio n / modification / alteration of the order dated 9.3.2011, passed in the writ pe tition, directing the parties to maintain status quo in respect of posting of He ad Master in Rangia Senior Basic School, Rangia. The ground on which the selecti on of the respondent No.5 has been challenged is the remark 1 year service brea k made against her name appearing in the select list drawn by the District Leve l Selection Committee, Kamrup District, (Rangia Sub-Division). Annexure-III to t he affidavit-in-reply to the application is the said document, a copy of which h as also been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-3. While the Annexure-3 co ntains undated signature of the District Elementary Education Officer, Kamrup, G uwahati-8, the Annexure-III select list contains as many as 5(five) signatures i ncluding the signature of the District Elementary Education Officer, Kamrup, Guw ahati. Against two of the signatures, the date 24.8.2010 appears. Be that as it may, the respondent No.5 in her application, has contended that her merit position in the select list being above the writ petitioner, the interim order is required to be vacated. It has been stated in the application that pursuant to the order of promotion dated 25.2.2011 based on the aforementio ned select list, the Head Master of the School in which the respondent No.5 had been serving, released her enabling her to join the promotional post in the new School. On 4.3.2011, the respondent No.5 had gone to the Rangia Senior Basic Sch ool for joining there as Head Master but the writ petitioner, who is serving in the School as Incharge Head Master, refused to handover the charge on the groun d of model code of conduct for the Assembly election being in operation. On 5.3. 2011, the respondent No.5 had again gone to the School but the charge was not ha nded over to her. As regards the break in service as mentioned in the remark column in the select list, the applicant has prayed for production of the service book and du ring the course of hearing of the instant application, Mr. A. Choudhury, learned counsel representing the said applicant i.e. respondent No.5, has produced the service book. On perusal of the service book, it appears that there is no period recor ded as break in service and the continuity in service from 1.3.1984 till date, i s quite discernible from the service book. Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the writ petitioner has brought on record the Annexure-I order dated 2.1.1999, s o as to contend that the service of the respondent No.5 was not regular service still her service was adjusted w.e.f. 1.8.1997. I am afraid, such a contention i s not at all acceptable inasmuch as the term adjustment cannot be related to t he term break in service . Nothing has been contended by the writ petitioner in respect of the services of the respondent No.5 to show any break in service. In the above context, the observation made in the service book at the ve ry beginning, may be referred to in which it has been stated that the appointmen t of the respondent No.5 as Assistant Teacher vide order dated 20.2.1984 w.e.f. 1.3.1984 stood regularized vide order dated 31.3.1984. It will be pertinent to m ention here that as against the appointment of the respondent No. 5 in 1984, the writ petitioner was appointed in 1985. Thus, going by the respective dates of a ppointment, admittedly the respondent No.5 is senior to the petitioner. Irrespective of the aforesaid remark one year service break , the fact of the matter is that in the select list the respondent No.5 occupies merit posi tion at Sl. No.3 as against the position occupied by the writ petitioner at Sl. No.6. So long as the merit list holds the field and the appointments are made to the post of Head Master, same will have to be followed. In the instant case, ad mittedly the respondent No.5 is senior to the writ petitioner and she also occup ies higher merit position than that of the writ petitioner. Above being the position and considering the fact that the writ petition er is holding only the charge of the post of Head Master and the respondent No.5 has been appointed on regular basis, I am of the considered opinion that the i nterim order passed on 9.3.2011 is required to be vacated. I hasten to add that the observations made in this order is only for the purpose of considering the p rayer for vacating the interim order and shall no way affect the rights and cont entions of the parties in the writ petition. Misc. Application stands allowed vacating the interim order dated 9.3.20 11. Consequently, the respondent No.5 applicant shall be allowed to join the pro motional post of Head Master.