WA 187/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR MADAN B. LOKUR HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr AR Bhuiyan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr VM Thomas, learne d counsel for the State. The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 11-2-2010 passed by a learned Singl e Judge in WP(C) No.3446/2009. A selection process was conducted for promotion to the post of Headmaster of Sib narayanpur ME Madrassa. This process was conducted in accordance with Rule 5(a) of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Service and Conduct Rules, 1981. The Rule reads as follows :- 5. Promotion - (a) The post of Head Pandit shall be a promotional post. Appoint ment to the posts shall be made on the basis of seniority-cum-efficiency on the recommendation of a Sub-divisional Selection Committee to be constituted by the Director of Elementary Education. A perusal of the aforesaid Rule clearly shows that the appointment/promo tion shall be on the basis of seniority-cum-efficiency on the recommendation of a duly constituted selection committee. In the selection process, the appellant was placed at Sl No.1 while resp ondent No.4 was placed at Sl No.11. However, in the seniority list, respondent N o.4 was placed at Sl No.3 while the appellant was placed at Sl No.25. Insofar as Sibanarayanpur ME Madrassa is concerned, respondent No.4 was senior to the appellant. The selection committee found the performance of both the appellant as well as r espondent No.4 to be good and on this basis, the official respondents promoted r espondent No.4 to the post of Headmaster on the basis of his seniority. This was challenged by the appellant before the learned Single Judge and that challenge was negatived. It is under these circumstances that the present appeal has been filed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that it is quite clear from a reading of Rule 5(a) that promotion has to be made on the basis of seniority-cum-efficiency. There is no doubt that both the appellant an d respondent No.4 were efficient and were fit to be promoted. Since respondent N o.4 was senior to the appellant, he was granted the promotion. We do not find any error in the action of the official respondents in th is regard and we, therefore, concur with the view taken by the learned Single Ju dge that there is no merit in the writ petition. Under the circumstances, the appeal is dismissed.