WP(C) 296/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. UK Goswami, learn ed standing counsel represents the respondents 1 to 4. The private respondent No .5 is represented by Mr. UK Nair, learned counsel. 2. The petitioner, who is serving as an Assistant Teacher of the 1963 No. A darsha Sishu Shikhalaya L.P. School (hereinafter referred to as the Adarsha Sch ool ), challenges the order dated 8.1.2010 (Annexure-VII) of the Deputy Inspecto r of Schools, Bilasipara, whereby the respondent No.5 Smti. Arati Rani Tapadar w as allowed to function as the Headmistress of the school, by cancelling the earl ier order posting the petitioner as Head Teacher. 3. The petitioner was appointed on adhoc basis as a teacher in Sonamoyee L. P. School on 29.5.1992 (Annexure-I) and thereafter by order dated 20.8.92 (Annex ure-II) his adhoc service was extended until further orders. The service of the petitioner was confirmed w.e.f. 30.5.1993 by order dated 2.2.2000. The writ peti tioner was temporarily transferred to the Saltari L.P. School on 20.2.06 and on his own request, by order dated 27.2.2009, the writ petitioner was transferred a s Assistant Teacher of Adarsha School. 4. On the other hand, the respondent No.5 was appointed as an Assistant Tea cher by order dated 20.8.1992 in another school but the sanctioned post of the o ther school was withdrawn and was attached to the Adarsha School. Accordingly th e petitioner accordingly served in the Adarsha School by virtue of the attachmen t order since 20.8.1992. 5. When the post of the Head Teacher in Adarsha School fell vacant due to r etirement of the regular incumbent on 31.10.09, the petitioner was initially all owed to act as the Head Teacher in Adarsha School by order dated 24th December, 2009 issued by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Bilasipara. But on re-examinatio n the respondent No.5 was considered to be the seniormost teacher of Adarsha Sch ool and she was accordingly allowed to act as Headmistress of the school in pla ce of the writ petitioner. 6. The petitioner claims seniority over respondent No.5 by contending that the respondent No.5 was appointed in a vacant post in the Bagribari L.P. School and accordingly she cannot claim seniority in the Adarsha School on the strength of temporary attachment order of the said vacancy. It is also contended that s ince the service of the petitioner was confirmed w.e.f. 30.5.1993, whereas the s ervice of the respondent No. 5 was confirmed subsequently w.e.f. 22.8.1993, the petitioner is senior to the respondent No.5 and should not be posted as In-charg e Headmaster. 7. On behalf of the official respondents, it is argued by Mr. UK Goswami th at the petitioner was transferred to Adarsha School at his own request from the Saltari L.P. School and accordingly the petitioner cannot be considered to be s enior to the respondent No.5 in Adarsha School, where the respondent No.5 has be en serving since 20.8.1992. 8.1 Arguing on behalf of the respondent No.5, it is submitted by Mr. UK Nair , learned counsel that the regular vacancy in Bagribari L.P. School itself was t ransferred to the Adarsha School on 20.8.1992 and the respondent No.5 although w as formally appointed at Bagribari School, was working at Adarsha School right s ince the date of her initial appointment. It is also contended that after two de cades, the attachment of the post of Bagribari L.P. School in Adarsha School can not be considered to be a temporary arrangement and must be construed as a perma nent shifting of the regular vacancy to the Adarsha School. 8.2 Referring to the provisions of Rule-4 of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Service & Conduct Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as th e 1981 Rules), Mr. Nair submits that the service of the petitioner could not ha ve been confirmed under Rule-4 as he was an ad-hoc appointee and without a subst antive appointment, confirmation of service under the 1981 Rule is impermissibl e. Mr. Nair refers to the appointment order of the petitioner as well as his ex tension order to show that on both occasions, the petitioner was considered to b e an adhoc appointee. 9. It appears from the rival submissions that the respondent No.5 is servi ng in the Adarsha School since August, 1992 after the regular vacancy from Bagri bari L.P. School was transferred to Adarsha School. Whereas the petitioner serve d at Adarsha School only w.e.f. 27th February, 2009 after seeking voluntary tra nsfer from Saltari School, where he was serving as an Assistant Teacher earlier. Since the seniority of teachers is to be considered on schoolwise basis and the respondent No.5 admittedly has served for a far longer period in Adarsha School , it is apparent that the petitioner cannot be considered to be senior to the re spondent No.5 in Adarsha School. 10. Furthermore, the confirmation of service of the petitioner ordered on 30 .5.1993 also appears to be irregular and inconsistent with the provisions of Rul e-4 of the 1981 Rules as the petitioner all along served as an adhoc teacher a nd was never appointed substantively, right since he entered service as a teache r. 12. Since the substantive vacancy in Bagribari LP School itself was transfer red to Adarsha School and the respondent No.5 is working in that substantive vac ancy in Adarsha School right since 20.8.1992 and the petitioner having come on t ransfer at his own request to Adarsha School by order dated 27.2.2009, I see no infirmity in the impugned declaration that the respondent No.5 is the seniormost teacher of the Adarsha School. Consequently, it is held that the respondent No. 5 was rightly posted as In-charge Headmistress of Adarsha School by considering that the petitioner has an inferior claim vis-a-vis the respondent No.5 for bein g posted as In-charge Headmaster.. 13. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this petition and same is hereby dismissed.