WA 200/2011 BEFORE HON BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.D.AGARWAL ( Amitava Roy,J) The instant appeal witnesses a challenge to the order dated 3.6.2011 passed in M isc. Case No.1218/2011 in WP( C) No.1887/2011 whereby the learned Single Judge d eclined to recall the order dated 30.3.2011 restraining the present appellant fr om taking over the charge of the office of the Headmaster, Public High School, D ibrugarh, as an interim measure. The officiating arrangement had been made vide order dated 19.2.2011 of the Deputy Director of Secondary Education, Assam holdi ng the appellant in terms of Rule 14(4)(i) of the Assam Secondary Education( Pr ovincialised) Service Rules,2003( for short, hereafter referred to as the ’Rules ’) to be eligible for promotion to the aforementioned office. We have heard Mr PJ Saikia, learned counsel for the appellant [ Respondent No.5 in WP( C) No.1887/2011], Mr A. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Education Departm ent, Govt. of Assam and Mr NK Baruah, learned counsel for the Respondent No.5 [ writ petitioner in WP( C) No.1887/2011]. As the writ petition is pending adjudication on merits, in view of the order pro posed to be passed, we consider it inessential to dilate on the facts. Suffice i t to mention that the Respondent No.5 herein has asserted himself to be a Scienc e Graduate (B.Sc.) and is serving as Assistant Teacher in the Public High Schoo l, Dibrugarh( hereafter referred to as the ’School’). According to him, he is th e senior most teacher of the said institution. Though, it is not his pleade d case that in terms of the criteria of eligibility as embodied in Rule 14(4)(i ) of the Rules, he is eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Hea dmaster of the school on regular basis, he has impugned the order dated 19.2.201 1 on the ground that as the appellant had joined the school on transfer on his o wn request, he cannot be allowed to score a march over him in law, he (appellant ) being apparently junior thereat. The interim order dated 30.3.2011 was passed on a tentative consideration of the averments made in the writ petition . However, as alluded hereinabove, the lear ned Single Judge declined to entertain the prayer for vacation thereof on the g round that the issue involved in the proceeding before him was subjudice before the Full Bench. Mr Saikia has urged that having regard to the pleaded case of the present Respon dent No.5 [writ petitioner in WP( C) No.1887/2011], the issue seeking adjudicati on in the writ proceeding is totally distinct and different from the one to be answered by the Full Bench and therefore, this consideration could not have com e in the way of considering the appellants prayer for vacation and/or modificat ion of the interim order dated 30.3.2011. The learned counsel for the respondents however, have insisted on the aspect of seniority to have a decisive bearing on the process of filling up the post of He admaster of the school on officiating basis. The materials on record presently available and the submissions made on behalf o f the parties have been duly considered. On queries made by this Court, the lea rned counsel for the Respondent No.5 has candidly admitted that it is not his( Respondent No.5) pleaded case that in terms of Rule 14(4)( i) of the Rules, he i s qualified/eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Headmaster o f the school on regular basis. He, however, has sought to urge that for the pur pose of officiating arrangement , the seniority of the candidate is of definiti ve significance, his deficiency to meet the prescribed qualification in the rel evant Rules, notwithstanding. Having regard to the averments made in the writ petition and the rival contentio ns of the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the ground on which the learned Single Judge had declined to entertain the applicant’s prayer for reca lling and/or vacating the interim order dated 30.3.2011 is not relevant in the f acts and circumstances of the case. In the above view of the matter, the order dated 30.3.2011 is interfered with. The appeal is allowed. The learned Single Judge is requested to consider the ap plication filed by the appellant for vacation/cancellation and/or modification o f the interim order dated 30.3.2011 on merits. No costs.