WP(C) 714/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE THE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY In challenge is the order dated 8/2/2008 passed by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, Guwahati, permitting the respondent No. 4 to hold the charge of the office of the Principal of Mugdi Milan Higher Secondary Schoo l, District Nalbari (hereafter referred to as the School). I have heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.R. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. Also heard Mr. A.C. Mondol, learned Counsel for respondent No. 4. The petitioner’s case in short is that he is a Graduate in Arts with Honours in Assamese and Sanskrit. In the year 1977, he also obtained Post G raduate Degree in Assamese from the Gauhati University. He was appointed as a Gr aduate Teacher (Sanskrit) in the Mugdi Milan High School on 20/8/1974 by its Man aging Committee. The School was brought under the deficit system of grants in ai d by the Government in the year 1976. Incidentally he was accorded the graduate scale of pay w.e.f. 1976. After the School was provincialised in the year 1977 i t was upgraded as a Higher Secondary institution in the year 1985. He was therea fter appointed as subject teacher of Assamese in the School on 27/7/1987. His se rvices as subject teacher in the above subject was affirmed by an order dated 3/ 7/2004 passed by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam whereafter the Post Graduate scale of pay was extended to him w.e.f. 27/7/1987. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 4 was originally appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the intermediate scale of pay on 1/7/1975 in Mugdi M.E. School, which was amalgamated with the then Mugdi Milan High Schoo l on 31/12/1979. He for all intents and purposes thus became a teacher of the Mu gdi Milan Higher Secondary School only on 31/12/1979 and was sanctioned the grad uate scale of pay w.e.f. 1/1/1981. In the seniority list of the School that was published and forwa rded to the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari District Circle, Nalbari, on 26/2/2007 by the then in-charge Principal, the petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 1 over th e respondent No. 4 being next in order. At the time of retirement of the in-char ge Principal of the School on 28/2/2007, he was required by the Inspector of Sch ools to handover the charge of the office of the Principal of the School to the petitioner being the senior most Assistant Teacher of the institution. The outgo ing Principal, however, arbitrarily handed over the charge to the respondent No. 4. Inspite of representations by the petitioner and repeated interventions of t he Inspector of Schools, Nalbari District Circle, Nalbari, the respondent No. 4 did not part with the Office. Consequently, the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari Di strict Circle, Nalbari, assumed charge of the said office and while retaining th e financial powers relatable thereto entrusted the academic charge thereof to on e Chirajul Haque, Hindi Teacher of the School on 7/6/2007. It was thereafter tha t by the impugned order, the respondent No. 4 was allowed to hold the charge of the Office of the Principal of the School by the Director of Secondary Education , Assam. The petitioner’s departmental appeal against the order has remained unf ruitful. The official respondents have not filed their affidavit. The res pondent No. 4 in his counter has claimed himself to be the senior most Assistant Teacher of the School, he having been appointed as the stipendiary teacher on 1 /7/1974. According to him, he had been serving against a permanent vacant post o f Assistant Teacher w.e.f. 1/7/1974 and had been provided with the graduate scal e of pay w.e.f. 1/1/1981. Relying on a notification dated 1/3/2003 issued by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department, th e answering respondent has asserted that for the purpose of his seniority his se rvices ought to be counted from the date of his joining the School in the interm ediate scale of pay, he at the relevant time being possessed of a graduate degre e. He has also relied on a seniority list forwarded to the Inspector of Schools, Nalbari District Circle, Nalbari on 26/2/2007 by the then in-charge Principal o f the School in which he had been shown senior to the petitioner. Mr. Dasgupta has argued that having regard to the dates of appoi ntment of the parties in the School involved, the petitioner is obviously senior to the respondent No. 4 and, therefore, the impugned order is on the face of th e records illegal and unsustainable in law, the school seniority being normally adopted as the yardstick in the matter of in-charge of Principalship of the inst itution concerned. As the petitioner is in receipt of graduate scale of pay w.e. f. 1/4/1976 compared to 1/1/1981 of the respondent No. 4, on that count as well he is entitled to a preference for the office, he urged. In any view of the matt er, as the petitioner is the subject teacher of the School receiving the Post Gr aduate scale of pay w.e.f. 27/7/1987, he could not have been ignored for the off ice involved to favour the respondent No. 4. The learned Counsel referring to Ru le 12 of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 2003, (he reafter referred to as the Rules) has urged that as the petitioner in terms ther eof is eligible for being recruited to the post of Principal on regular basis, h aving regard to the attendant facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order installing the respondent No. 4 as the in-charge Principal of the School i s patently illegal and is liable to be interfered with. Mr. Pathak with reference to Rule 24 (2) of the Rules has urged that the petitioner being a Classical Teacher his seniority in service is to be reckoned from 3/8/1990 for the purpose involved and, therefore, he being obvious ly junior to the respondent No. 4, the impugned order cannot be faulted with. Th e learned Standing Counsel, however, has clarified that the notification dated 1 /3/2003 is no longer in force and, therefore, the respondent No. 4 cannot in law claim any benefit on the basis thereof. Mr. Mondol submits that having regard to the measure of seniorit y of graduate teachers as detailed in Rule 24 of the Rules, the petitioner being a Classical Teacher, he is junior to the respondent No. 4 and, therefore, the i mpugned order is valid. The rival pleadings and the contrasting arguments have been duly considered. Indubitably, the seniority of the petitioner, considering the subje ct he teaches, as a graduate teacher is to be computed w.e.f. 3/8/1990 in terms of Rule 24(2)(iv) of the Rules. The actual date of receipt of graduate scale of pay i.e. 1/4/1976, in the teeth of the above provision of the Rules, is, therefo re, inconsequential for the purpose of gauging his seniority as a graduate teach er. Rule 12 of the Rules enumerates the conditions of eligibility for the recrui tment to the post of Principal of the Schools governed thereby. There is no wran gle at the bar that both the petitioner and the respondent No. 4, judged by the criteria mentioned therein are eligible to be considered for the said office. No ticeably the petitioner presently is a subject teacher in Assamese in receipt of Post Graduate scale of pay w.e.f. 27/7/1997. As both the Post Graduate as well as Graduate Teachers of a School contemplated by the Rules are eligible to be ap pointed as the Principal thereof, a common criterion ought to be applied for det ermining their seniority for the in-charge Principalship of such a School. This is so as School seniority is the usually accepted norm for effecting such an arr angement. In the facts of the present case, seniority as a Graduate Teacher thus is of definitive bearing judged by the above consideration. Having regard to th e mandate of Rule 24(2)(iv) of the Rules which is not under assailment in the in stant proceeding, the respondent No. 4 has to be adjudged senior to the petition er. The fact that the petitioner is presently the subject teacher of Assamese, e njoying Post Graduate Scale of pay is of no avail to him for this purpose. In the above view of the matter, the impugned order is not vitia ted by any illegality warranting interference of this Court. The petition lacks in merit and is dismissed. No costs.