WP(C) 2467/2004 BEFORE HON’BLR MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Both the writ petitions, consequential to one another, involving the sam e parties, have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common jud gment and order. 2. The matter relates to seniority dispute between the petitioner and the p rivate respondent. While it is the claim of the petitioner that she is senior t o the private respondent, it is the claim of the private respondent that he is s enior to the petitioner and that the issue is no longer res integra in view of the earlier judgment of this Court. 3. The first writ petition being W.P. (C) No.2467/2004 was filed by the pet itioner seeking implementation of the order dated 14.7.2003 (Annexure-2 to the w rit petition) by which the Director of Secondary Education, Assam held the petit ioner senior to the private respondent. However, the order was kept in abeyance by order dated 16.7.2003 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition). In the writ petitio n, the petitioner made challenge to the same. 4. The petitioner filed the second writ petition being W.P. (C) No.6034/200 5 ,making a grievance against the order passed by the official respondents allow ing the private respondent to hold charge of the Principal of the school. Such charge was given on the basis of the finding that the private respondent was sen ior to the petitioner in service. 5. Both the incumbents i.e. the petitioner and the private respondent are A ssistant Teachers of the school called Bokakhat Higher Secondary School. Their respective dates of earning graduate scale of pay are 15.5.1985 and 1.3.1984. It is the petitioner, who was given charge of Principal by Annexure-1 order dated 26.2.2001. Being aggrieved, the private respondent along with another, approache d this Court by filing the writ petition being W.P. (C) No.2126/2001. The writ petition was disposed of by judgment and order dated 10.2.2003 holding that the said two incumbents were senior to the petitioner. Be it stated here that prese ntly, the other incumbent namely, Shri Maneswar Gogoi is no longer in the fray, as in the meantime, he has retired from service on attaining the age of superan nuation. Thus, the present dispute is only between the petitioner and the priva te respondent. 6. Being the aforesaid judgment and order dated 10.2.2003, this Court clea rly held that the private respondent was senior to the petitioner. After holdin g so, it was also observed that even in the case of temporary arrangement, the s eniormost teacher should be preferred over the juniors. After holding so, the i mpugned order dated 26.2.2001, by which the petitioner was allowed to hold charg e of Principal, was set aside and quashed with the direction to the respondents to pass appropriate order taking into account the seniority of the two teachers involved vis-a-vis the petitioner. 7. After the aforesaid judgment and order passed by this Court, the Directo r of Secondary Education, Assam passed the Annexure-2 order dated 14.7.2003 hold ing that the petitioner was senior to the other two teachers. Such a finding c ould not have been returned by the Director sitting on appeal over the finding a rrived at by this Court in the aforesaid judgment and order dated 10.2.2003. Po ssibly, realizing the mistake, the said Director passed the Annexure-3 order dat ed 166.7.2003 keeping in abeyance his earlier order dated 14.7.2003. 8. In the meantime, the proceeding was drawn up against the petitioner for her alleged unauthorized absence from the school. It is on that basis, the Dir ector passed the order dated 30.3.2005 allowing the petitioner to join the schoo l as Assistant Teacher and not as Principal-in-charge. Being aggrieved, the pet itioner filed the first writ petition being W.P. (C) No.2467/2004. 9. The second writ petition being W.P. (C) No.6034/2005 was filed by the pe titioner making a grievance against the action on the part of the official respo ndents in giving charge of the Principal of the school to the private respondent . 10. I have heard Mr. R. P. Sarmah, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. M.R. Adhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P.P. Baruah, learned counsel representing the private respondent. I have also heard Mr. A. Borkataki as well as Mr. S.K. Das, learned Standing Counsel representing the official res pondents in the writ petitions. 11. Once the seniority dispute between the petitioner and the private respon dent was decided by this Court holding that the private respondent was senior to the petitioner, the Director of Secondary Education, Assam could not have passe d the Annexure-2 order dated 14.7.2003 holding the petitioner to be senior to th e private respondent. As noted above, the order was kept in abeyance by the Ann exure-3 order dated 16.7.2003. Once the private respondent is held to be the sen ior to the petitioner, as a natural consequence, the charge of Principal of the school will go to him. This is precisely what the official respondents have don e by issuing the order dated 4.8.2005. 12. In view of the above, it was really not necessary for the Director to pa ss the order dated 30.3.2005. The order gives an impression that although the p etitioner was senior to the private respondent, but she was not entrusted with t he charge of Principal in view of her unauthorized absence. When the matter rel ating to seniority between the petitioner and the private respondent attained it s finality in view of the aforesaid judgment and order dated 10.2.2003, there co uld not have been any occasion for the Director to pass orders deviating from th e finding arrived at by this Court. 13. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in both the writ petition s and consequently, they are dismissed.