WP(C) 2228/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE IA ANSARI Heard Mr. PK Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. J Abedin, learned Standing counsel, Education Department, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3. Heard also Mr. BD Goswami, learned counsel for the r espondent No. 5, who is hereinafter referred to as the private respondent. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 5, i.e., the Principal of the schoo l. Before the writ petition is disposed of, it is necessary to take note of Sub-Rul e (viii) of Rule 24 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Ru les, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as, ’the 2003 Rules’), which lays down that i n the case of dispute with regard to seniority between teachers of Higher Second ary Schools, it is the Government, which shall decide the matter and the Governm ent’s decision shall be final. In the backdrop of Rule 24(viii), which shows that it is primarily for the State Government to decide the dispute with regard to the seniority between teachers; more so, when the dispute relates to seniority of the teachers for the purpose of their promotion to the post of Vice-Principal inasmuch as a careful reading o f Rule 14 shows that while the post of Vice-Principal is a post, which is requir ed to be filled up by promotion on the basis of combined seniority list of the s chool concerned, the seniority list being of the graduate and post graduate teac hers with minimum 10 years of teaching experience in the post of post graduate t eacher and 12 years teaching experience in the case of graduate teacher subject to satisfactory Annual Confidential Report for 3 consecutive years. In the case at hand, both the petitioners are, admittedly, graduate teachers. Hence, the min imum qualification in respect of both of them would be 12 years of teaching expe rience. It is not in dispute that both the petitioner as well as the private res pondent, have the requisite number of years of service and that both of them are eligible for promotion to the post of Vice-Principal. Considering, however, the fact that the post of Vice-Principal is a promotional post, correct determinati on of inter se seniority between the rival claimants is imperative. The State Go vernment cannot promote any of the contesting parties to the post of Vice-Princi pal, without determining their inter se seniority correctly. In the case at hand, the gradation list, which has been prepared by the school s hows the date of provincialisation of both the contesting candidates as 01-10-19 77, whereas the petitioner claims that he had been working as an Assistant Teach er since 01-08-1975 and the private respondent has become the teacher of the sch ool aforementioned, on 13-07-1977. The private respondent contends that she beca me teacher of the said school on 13-07-1977 and the present writ petitioner beca me a teacher of the said school on 20-09-1977. It is also shown by the private r espondent that the petitioner had worked as a substitute teacher during the leav e vacancy of Harendra Nath Sarma, for a period of time, w.e.f. 01-08-1975. Coupled with the above, the proceedings of the Managing Committee of the school, which the learned standing counsel, Education Department, has produced. The pro ceedings show that the petitioner had been appointed as a substitute teacher dur ing the leave vacancy of Harendra Nath Sarma, w.e.f. 02-08-1975 to 16-01-1976.. In fact, even the copy of the Acquaintance Rolls, which the petitioner has relie d upon, do not show that the petitioner received any salary after the month of D ecember, 1975, the last salary for the month of December, 1975, having received by the petitioner in January, 1976. The proceedings also show that the private respondent was appointed, as a teache r, by the Managing Committee by its resolution adopted on 13-07-1977; whereas th e petitioner came to be appointed by the Managing Committee by its resolution, d ated 29-09-1977. What emerges from the above discussion is that the dispute, with regard to senio rity between the two candidates, needs to be decided and settled by the State Go vernment in the light of what have been indicated above after, however, affordin g opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned including the writ petitio ner, the private respondent and the respondent No. 4, namely, Principal, Bebejia PKS Higher Secondary School, Bebejia, Nagaon. In the result and for the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is partly allowe d. The Secretary to the Government of Assam, (Secondary) Education Department, s hall examine the question of inter se seniority between the petitioner and the p rivate respondent in the light of what have been indicated above and in the mann er as have been observed above. As the delay in determination of seniority would prolong the dispute, the Secret ary to the Government of Assam, (Secondary) Education Department, is hereby dire cted that he shall complete the entire exercise of determination of seniority wi thin a period of 10 (ten) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by him. The parties to the writ petition may furnish to the Secretary to the Go vernment of Assam, (Secondary) Education Department, a certified copy of this or der along with copy of the writ petition and annexure thereto. The party, who ma y feel aggrieved by the decision(s) of the Secretary to the Government of Assam, (Secondary) Education Department, or by the order(s) of the Secretary to the Go vernment of Assam, (Secondary) Education Department, he shall remain at liberty to take recourse to appropriate provisions of law. Until the time a decision, as directed hereinabove, is taken, the present arrangement of running the office o f the Principal-in-Charge, Bebejia PKS Higher Secondary School, Bebejia, Nagaon, shall continue. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition shall stand dispo sed of.