THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.26075 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner is working as School Assistant in respondent No.6 institution, which is admitted to grant-in-aid. There are three School Assistants in the institution as of now, namely respondent Nos.8, 7 and the petitioner in the order of seniority. Respondent No.7, who is the junior most School Assistant, was appointed as Headmaster of the institution on the ground that respondent No.8, the senior most, refused to accept the assignment. Litigation pursued thereafter, so much so, the petitioner filed W.P.No.1477 of 2009, which is said to be pending. The Correspondent of the institution passed order, dated 04.10.2010, appointing respondent No.8 i.e. Smt.Aziza Sultana as Headmistress in the place of respondent No.7. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same. She contends that when respondent No.8 has refused to function as Headmistress, there is absolutely no basis for appointing her to that post. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for School Education. The petitioner does not dispute that respondent No.8 is the senior most School Assistant. For one reason or the other, the institution has appointed respondent No.7 as Headmaster. At one stage, it was mentioned that respondent No.8 has refused to act as Headmistress. The litigation ensued in the Office of the Education Department as well as before this Court. The management is now convinced that the senior most School Assistant must be appointed as Headmistress and accordingly, the impugned order was passed. The petitioner cannot have any plausible objection for that. She can, however, insist that in case respondent No.8 is not willing to function as Headmistress, her case shall be considered in preference to respondent No.7. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of. It is, however, directed that in case respondent No.8 refuses to function as Headmistress, the institution shall strictly follow the seniority in the matter of appointment of the incumbent. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt: 22.10.2010. kdl