WP(C) 1346/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B K SHARMA Both the writ petitions filed by the same petitioner having involved mor e or less the same issue and as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties , have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. [2] The first writ petition being WP(C) No.393/2008 was filed by the petitioner putting a challenge to the Annexure-6 select list dated 23.07.2007, which was prepared for promotion to the post of Head master/Head Mistress in ME/ MEM Schools for the sub-Division, Hojai in the District of Nagaon. In the said s elect list, the respondent No.5 was included at Sl. No.10. On the other hand, th e petitioner, who claims to be senior to her was not included. On the basis of s uch selection of the respondent No.5 and inclusion of her name in the select lis t she was entitled to get promotion to the post of Head Mistress in ME/MEM Schoo l. Presently, the petitioner is continuing as Head Master-in-Charge of the Schoo l called Ram Krishna Vidyapith M. E. School on the strength of the interim order passed on 04.02.2008. [3] In the second writ petition the challenge made by the same very petitioner is the subsequent select list dated 21.02.2009 (Annexure-13) in which also, it is the respondent No.5, who has been included at Sl. No.21 while the p etitioner has not been included. Thus, on the strength of this select list also, the respondent No.5 is entitled to get promotion to the post of Head Mistress o f ME/MEM/ Senior Basic School. [4] At this stage, it will be pertinent to mention here that earlie r there was some dispute as to the holding of charge of the post Head Master/Hea d Mistress of the school by and between the petitioner and the respondent No.5, which gave rise filing of WP(C) No.5870/2007. The writ petition was disposed of by judgment and order dated 10.01.2008 determining the school seniority of the p etitioner above the respondent No.5 and allowing the petitioner to hold the char ge of the post of Head Master of the school. The orders, which were issued allow ing the respondent No.5 to hold the charge of Head Master were interfered with. However, the said proceeding was only in respect of the question as to who will be entitled to hold the charge of Head Master of the school on the basis of scho ol seniority. In the said proceeding it was held that so far as the school senio rity is concerned, it is the petitioner, who is senior to the respondent No.5 an d consequently, till such time a regularly selected Head Master/Head Mistress is appointed. It is the petitioner, who will continue to hold charge of the post o f Head Master. The operative part of the aforesaid judgment and order is quoted below : In the above view of the matter and judged by school seniority, the petitioner is senior to respondent No.5. In my considered opinion, therefore, he could not have been overlooked in preference to her (respondent No.5) for the inchargeshi p of the office of the Head Master/Head Mistress of the school involved. The cla im of the respondent No.5 to the post, on the basis of her claim of selection fo r regular promotion thereof, which is denounced by the petitioner, having regard to the limited purpose of comparative suitability for holding the post of Head Master of the school on incharge basis, is not construed to be of any definitive relevance. There being no semblance of any assertion that the petitioner is unf it or ineligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Head Master/head Mistress on regular basis and in view of accepted parameter of school seniority to be the dominating criteria to adjudge the entitlement for holding the Office of the Head Master/Head Mistress on incharge basis, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law and are, therefore, interfered with. The orders dated 12.07.2 007, 26.10.2007 and 02.11.2007 passed by the District Elementary Education Offic er, Nagaon and the impugned proceeding are hereby set aside. [5] The petitioner was initially appointed as an Honorary Teacher in the school and such appointment was affected from 01.03.1983. However, upon a r eference to Annexure-1 gradation list dated 03.10.2006, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed from 01.04.1983. It may be mentioned here that when the petitioner was so appointed the school was already provincialised one. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was appointed by the Managing Committee of the school and there is nothing to show that the p etitioner was appointed by following the Recruitment Rules. [6] The service of the petitioner was regularised in the year 1993 b y order dated 28.09.1993 issued by the District Elementary Education Officer, Na gaon. By the said order his service was regularised w.e.f. 01.03.1993. On the ot her hand, the services of the respondent No.5 was provincialised w.e.f.19.11.199 1 by order dated 18.01.1992. While Mr. B Chakraborty, learned counsel representi ng the respondent No.5 submits that the seniority of the petitioner will have to be counted w.e.f. 01.03.1993 i.e. the date on which his service was regularised , Mr. A S Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner submits that the seniority of the petitioner will have to be counted w.e.f. 01.04.1983 i .e. the initial date of appointment. [7] Although no copy of the appointment order, which was issued in f avour of the petitioner by the Managing Committee of the school appointing him w .e.f. 1.4.1983 is available on record but from Annexure-2, letter dated 03.01.20 07, addressed to the District Elementary Education Officer, Nagaon by the Deputy Inspector of School, Hojai, it is seen that the petitioner was appointed in the school by the Managing Committee w.e.f. 01.04.1983 as Honorary Additional Teach er and thereafter, his service was regularised w.e.f. 01.03.1993. As has been he ld by this Court in Jahangir Alam & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors. reported in 2 003 (3) GLT 544 the Teachers serving in Lower Primary, Middle English, High and Higher Secondary Schools on honorary basis have no legal or equitable right for regularisation. In the said case, the issue was as to whether the honorary teac hers serving in provincialised schools are entitled to get regularisation of the ir services. It was held that, such teachers working in the provincialised schoo ls are not entitled to get regularisation of service. [8] In view of the above, when such teachers like that of the petiti oner are not entitled to get regularisation of service, there is no question of assigning seniority to such teachers from the initial date of appointment. The s ervice of the petitioner was regularised w.e.f. 01.03.1993 by the Annexure-D, or der dated 28.09.1993, a copy of which has been annexed to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No.5. Apart from the fact that in the said order of regu larisation there is no mention of any retrospective regularisation even otherwis e also, the petitioner cannot claim that he will be entitled to seniority from t he initial date of appointment w.e.f. 01.04.1983. For all practical purposes, th e period of service rendered by the petitioner as honorary teacher in a provinci alised school w.e.f. 01.03.1983 to 01.04.1993 was fortuitous and this cannot be counted towards seniority. By now, it is settled principle of seniority that adh oc or temporary service dehors the Recruitment Rules cannot be counted towards s eniority and the seniority will have to be counted from the date of regularisati on, which is normally prospective. [9] Thus, in the above backdrop, the matter will have to be consider ed as to whether there was anything wrong in not sending the name of the petitio ner for selection for promotion to the post of Head Master in ME School. While t here is no dispute that the petitioner is the senior most teacher in the school but taking into account overall seniority in the Sub-division it is the responde nt No.5, who is senior to the petitioner. Be it stated here that the selection f or the post of Head Master is required to be conducted Sub-division wise and not school wise. The criteria for selection has been laid down by the Government of Assam in the Education (Personnel) Department vide notification dated 30.08.199 6 in terms of which, firstly, a gradation list is required to be prepared Sub-di vision wise and thereafter, a selection is required to be conducted from amongst the incumbents included in the gradation list. [10] I have considered the submissions made by Mr. A S Choudhury, lea rned Senior Counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B Chakraborty, learned cou nsel representing the respondent No.5. I have also considered submissions advanc ed by Mr. M Datta, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, Assam and the records produced by him. [11] From the materials on record it appears that in the gradation li st dated 03.10.2006(Annexure-1 to the WP(C) No.1346/2009) the name of the petiti oner was included at Sl No.27 showing his date of appointment as 01.04.1983. On the other hand, the name of the respondent No.5 was not included. When such excl usion of respondent No.5 from the gradation list was objected to, necessary corr ection was carried out in the gradation list and the records have revealed that in the said gradation list pursuant to a corrigendum dated 22.05.2007 the name o f the respondent No.5 was included. As per the said corrigendum, the seniority position of the petitioner was at Sl. No.62. Be it stated here that the selectio n for the post of Head Master is to be carried out in the ratio of 1:4 and in th e particular selection there being altogether 6 posts, on that basis 24 incumben ts were to be considered. The seniority position of the petitioner being at Sl N o.62. naturally, his case did not come within the zone of consideration. [12] After the aforesaid correction of position in the gradation list , the authority conducted the selection and on the basis of the said selection, the impugned select list dated 23.07.2007 was published in which the name of the respondent No.5 was included at Sl No.10. Although the petitioner has annexed a copy of the select list dated 23.07.2007(Annexure 6) showing insertion of name of the respondent No.5 by hand, but on verification of records what I find is th at her name was not included by any insertion but was included like that of any other selected candidates. [13] When the aforesaid position was holding the field but in the mea ntime, the petitioner continued to hold the charge of Head Master, due to efflux of time the authority was required to prepare another select list. Such select list was prepared and published vide Annexure-13 dated 28.01.2009. This time als o, the name of the respondent No.5 was included at Sl No.21. As the petitioner d id not come within the zone of consideration, there was no question of inclusion of his name in the select list. The records have revelled that prior to prepara tion of the select list a gradation list was prepared which included the names o f all eligible candidates for consideration of selection to the post of Head Mas ter in ME School. (14) The fallout of the aforesaid consequences is that while the res pondent No.5 is a selected candidate for appointment appointed to the post of He ad Master in the ME School, the petitioner is not. However, by virtue of interim order passed by this Court he has been holding the charge of Head Master to the deprivation of respondent No.5 [15] In view of the above, I am not inclined to accept the contention s raised in the writ petitions and both the writ petitions are dismissed. [16] The interim order passed earlier, stands vacated. The authority is directed to take necessary follow-up actions in terms of this judgment and or der. [17] The Writ petitions are dismissed. There shall no order as to cos ts.