WP(C) 6538/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. A.M. Majumdar, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. A.M. Borbhu yan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel for the respondent No. 4. I have also heard Ms. M. Gogoi, learned S tanding counsel, Education Department. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the Annexure-4 ord er dated 30.11.2010 by which the respondent No. 4 has been allowed to hold the c harge of Superintendent of Hailakandi Town High Madrassa. The arrangement was ma de on account of retirement of the earlier incumbent on attaining the age of sup erannuation. Prior to the aforesaid impugned order the petitioner was handed over the charge of Superintendent by the outgoing Superintendent which was earlier to 30.11.2010 . The petitioner has referred to Annexure-I letter dated 19.11.2010 by which the Inspector of Schools, Hailakandi instructed the outgoing Superintendent to hand over the charge to the senior most teacher of the school. As per the requirement of the relevant rules, a teacher is eligible to promotion to the post of Superintendent who has the qualification of Degree with B.T./ B. Ed. Admittedly the petitioner does not posses B.T./ B.Ed. and thus, he is not qu alified to hold the charge of the post of Superintendent. Although Mr. Majumdar, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner submits that since it is only for a temp orary arrangement till such time a regular Headmaster/ Superintendent is appoin ted, there is no bar to allow the senior most teacher to look after the office o f the Superintendent, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not qualified to hold the post of Superintendent in the garb of temporary arrangemen t. In Jagannath Pegu vs. State of Assam and ors. reported in 2007 3 GLT 389, this a spect of the matter has been dealt with in which it has been held as follows: 10. It is apparent that the petitioner is senior to the respondent No. 4 as gr aduate Assistant Teacher and eligible in terms of the Rules for being promoted to the Head master. In absence of any material on record to justify the impugned order, I am not inclined to sustain the submission made on behalf of the offici al respondent. Noticeably the official records pertaining to a decision precedin g the issuance of the impugned order also have not been produced in support ther eof. It is too fundamental to state that a candidate eligible in terms of the re levant Rules for promotion to a post on a regular basis cannot be overlooked for the purpose of any temporary arrangement concerning the post as in the instant case. In absence of any affidavit controverting the correctness or authenticity of the statements made in the petition, it is permissible to proceed on the basi s that the pleaded case of the petitioner is correct. Although Mr. Majumdar, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner has placed relianc e on another decision of this Court reported in 2010 6 GLR 528 (Bijon Bhattchary ya vs. State of Assam and others), I am of the considered opinion that this case is of no help to the case of the petitioner. Rather it helps the case of the re spondent No. 4. As in the instant case, in that case also the private respondent was allowed to hold the charge of the office of the Headmaster. The said respon dent was qualified to hold the post. In such a situation it was held that if the Govt. decides to give the charge of the Headmaster to the qualified teacher, no fault can be attributed to the said action. In the instant case, the Director of Secondary Education, Assam has passed the i mpugned order allowing the respondent No. 4 to hold the charge of the post of Su perintendent. It will be pertinent to mention here that he is qualified to hold the post while the petitioner is not so qualified. At this stage, Mr. Majumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a settled principle of law an ad hoc employee cannot be replaced by another a d hoc employee, i.e. the petitioner could not have been replaced by the responde nt No.4. Apart from the fact that there is no appointment in favour of the peti tioner but he was handed over the charge by the outgoing Superintendent, the sai d principle is also not applicable to this case. It is not the case of replaceme nt of one ad hoc employee by another ad hoc employee, what was done is the handi ng over the charge to the respondent No. 4, a qualified teacher in place of an u nderqualified teacher, i.e. the petitioner. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and according ly it is dismissed.