WP(C) 4420/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE I A ANSARI JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. P. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. M. R. Pa thak, learned Standing counsel, Education Department, appearing on behalf of res pondent Nos. 1 to 4. Heard also Mr. U. K. Nair, learned counsel, appearing on b ehalf of the respondent No. 5. 2. The controversy, in this writ petition, has arisen following the retirem ent, on superannuation, of one Promod Chandra Sharma, senior-most Assistant teac her of Belsor Girls’ High School, Belsor. While the date of joining of the said incumbent, in the said school, was 01.09.1974, the petitioner joined the said s chool, as Assistant teacher, on 23.12.1983, and the respondent No. 5 joined the said school, as Assistant teacher, on 15.05.1984. While graduate scale of pay w as made available to the petitioner with effect from 01.01.11984, respondent No. 5 was given graduate scale of pay with effect from 15.05.1984. On the retireme nt of the said Pramod Chandra Sharma on 30.06.2009, respondent no. 5, namely, Ud ay Barman, who is an Assistant teacher in the said school holding degrees of B.S c. and B.Ed., has been allowed, by order, dated 05.10.2009, issued by the respon dent No. 3, namely, the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, to hold the char ge of the office of the headmaster of the said school with the financial power t o draw and disburse, in terms of Fundamental Rule 49, salary, etc., of the teach ers and staff of the said school. The order, dated 05.10.2009, aforementioned c learly mentions that the order aforementioned has been passed as a purely tempor ary measure. Aggrieved by the fact that the date of joining of the respondent N o. 5, in the said school, was later than that of the petitioner, who is also an Assistant teacher serving in the said school, the petitioner has filed this writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugning the order, dated 05.10.2009, on the ground that the petitioner, being the senior-most teach er in the said school, was entitled, and ought to have been allowed, to hold the charge of the office of the headmaster of the said school in the absence of a r egularly appointed headmaster of the said school. 3. On perusal of the materials on record, including the materials made avai lable in the Misc. Application No. 82/2010 filed in this writ petition and the r ecords, made available my the learned Standing counsel, Education Department, wh at transpires is that the petitioner is a subject-teacher of Hindi without havin g B.Ed. Degree; whereas the respondent No. 5 is, as already indicated above, a g raduate of Science with B.Ed. Degree. 4. Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 14 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialized ) Service Rule, 2003, prescribes the minimum qualification required for appointm ent to the post of, amongst others, headmaster of a High School. The requisite qualifications, as per the said Rule, are, amongst others, that the person shall be a graduate in arts, science or commerce with B.T. or B.Ed. degree and that h e or she must have, at least, 10 years of teaching experience as a graduate teac her. 5. When the facts, as narrated above, are considered in the light of the st atutory provisions aforementioned, it becomes clear that a person, though may be a graduate in arts, science or commerce, is not eligible to be appointed as the headmaster of a High School unless he also holds the requisite degree in Educat ion as aforementioned. The State respondents, particularly, respondent No. 3, h ad, thus, two options available to them in this regard. One of the two options was to allow the present petitioner to hold the charge of the office of the head master of the said school, despite the fact that the petitioner did not have the requisite qualification, and the other was to allow the respondent No. 5 to hol d the charge of the office of the headmaster on, at least, the ground that he wa s educationally qualified to hold the charge and had requisite experience too. Respondent No. 3, it is clear from the records, appointed and allowed the respon dent No. 5 to hold the charge of the office of the headmaster because he has the requisite educational qualifications and he is but barely four months’ junior t o the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 exercised the option of allowing the res pondent No. 5 to hold the charge cannot be said to be so arbitrary, unreasonable , or illegal so much so that it would warrant interference by this Court in exer cising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Sharma has pointed out that r espondent No. 3 has passed several orders allowing the persons, who did not have the requisite educational qualification to hold the charge of the office of the headmaster of High School and, in such circumstances, he ought not to have depa rted from the practice that was being followed. 7. In a situation, where a person has more than one option and the person c hooses the option, which is legal and reasonable, such an option cannot be inter fered with on the ground that the person, in the past, had taken action, which w as illegal and unreasonable. In the name of removing discrimination, this Court cannot, in exercise of its powers under Article 226, command a person to repeat an illegality, which might have been committed by him in the past. In fact, re spondent No. 3, referring to two decisions of this Court, has noted, while makin g the impugned order, that it is the respondent No. 5, who has the requisite qua lification to hold the post, and, hence, he be given the charge of the office of the headmaster of the said school. 8. This Court, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of this case as narrated above, finds no reason to interfere with the impugned ord er. 9. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, this writ pet ition is not admitted and the same shall accordingly stand dismissed. 10. No order as to cost.