WA 258/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. P. KATAKEY Ranjan Gogoi,CJ (Acting) This writ appeal has been filed challenging an order dated 29.7.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in a proceeding registered and numbered as W P(C) No.3026 of 2009. By the said judgment and order, taking note of the rival c ontentions advanced by the writ petitioner and the respondent No.5 in the writ p etition with regard to their inter se seniority for the purpose of holding charg e of the office of the Principal of the School in question the learned Single Ju dge directed the appropriate authority in the Education Department of the State to decide the matter. In this regard, the learned Single Judge specifically note d that it is the contention of the writ petitioner (respondent No.5 herein) that he had been appointed in the graduate scale of pay with effect from 26.9.1981 a nd, therefore, is senior to the respondent No.5 in the writ petition (appellant herein) who acquired the graduation degree only in the year 1988. Aggrieved, the respondent No.5 in the writ petition has filed the present appeal. The only contentions advanced at the admission hearing of the appeal by Sri A. R . Sikdar, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the inter se seniority of t he two incumbents will now be required to be decided by the competent authority of the State Government in accordance with the decision of the Full Bench of thi s Court in Rukmini Bora & Another vs. State of Assam and others, reported in 200 9 (3) GLT 834. The Full Bench decision of this Court in Rukmini Bora (supra) was with regard to the principles for determination of seniority of Classical Teachers/Hindi Teach ers who have a graduation degree and not to other species of such teachers. This is specifically recorded in paragraph 3 of the order of the Full Bench. The writ appellant himself admits that he had acquired the graduation degree in the year 1988. If that be so, in terms of the Full Bench decision the period of service rendered by the appellant after acquiring his degree qualification in 19 88 alone can be counted for the purpose of determination of seniority. We, therefore, find no good ground to interfere with the directions issued by th e learned Single Judge. The writ appeal, consequently, is devoid of merit. It is accordingly dismissed. No cost.