WP(C) 3738/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY The petitioner and the respondent No.5 Jitendra Nath Das are both contenders for the post of Headmaster of Pubpar Gandhiji Bidyapith M.E. School under Kamalpur Block of Kamrup District. The petitioner admits that the respondent No.5 is seni or to him in service as an Assistant Teacher in the said school. The respondent No.5 was on deputation with the Assam Sarba Siksha Abhija n Mission (SSA) since 2003 and returned to the school after nearly 7 years of de putation. The petitioner contends that return of a deputed person can’t be permi tted, without concurrence of the Finance Department as it is contended to be man datory under Clause 1 of the Office Memorandum dated 19.7.1997. However Mr. UK Nair, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 s ubmits that during the deputation period, respondent No.5 continues to hold a li en on his post in the school and his seniority claim can’t be disregarded, merel y because he was away from the school on deputation. Mr. UK Goswami, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department su bmits that the name of the respondent No.5 and another senior teacher of the sch ool was not reflected in the list of existing staff of the Pubpar Gandhiji Bidya pith M.E. School and that is how at the time of superannuation of the earlier H eadmaster of the school, the charge of the office was handed over to the writ pe titioner and the District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO) allowed him to hol d charge of the said office. It is further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that in view of the appeal filed by the respondent No.5 before the Assam Administrative Tribunal , Guwahati through Case No. 10 ATA/2010 and the order passed by the learned Trib unal on 6.3.2010 for an appropriate decision on the respective claim of the writ petitioner and the respondent No.5, the Director of Elementary Education Assam, i.e. D.E.E., is required to take a decision in the matter. However the decision couldn’t be taken because of the pendency of the instant case. Having regard to the submissions of the rival counsels, I am of the cons idered opinion that the DEE, Assam should decide as to who should be posted as t he Headmaster of Pubpar Gandhiji Bidyapaith M.E. School. It is seen from the ord er dated 8.6.2010 of the DEEO, Kamrup that the BEEO, Kamalpur has been directed to take over charge of the Pubpar Gandhiji Bidyapaith M.E. School in view of th e contesting claims and the writ petitioner has been directed by the DEEO’s ord er dated 15.6.2010 to handover charge of office of Headmaster to the BEEO. Since it is admitted that the respondent No.5 is senior to the writ peti tioner, I see no justification to enable the writ petitioner to continue to be t he Headmaster-in-Charge while the DEE, Assam is to take a decision on the entitl ement of the person to be posted as Headmaster of the school. Considering the above, the D.E.E, Assam is directed to decide on the res pective claim on merit by having due regard to all the relevant parameters and R ules, within a period of 8 weeks from today. An opportunity to all the parties m ay be afforded before any decision is made Until the decision is taken by the Director, the BEEO, Kamalpur shall hold charg e of the office of the Headmaster of the Pubpar Gandhiji Bidyapaith M.E. School. The case is disposed of accordingly.