WA 297/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AK GOEL THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA by Goel, J. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 20.9.2011 passed by l earned Single Judge quashing the order dated 17.11.2009 allowing the appellant t o hold the charge of higher post, i.e. AE/CD-II on in-charge basis. The writ petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that sen iority of the writ petitioner was not taken into account while giving charge to the appellant. Though the appellant was allowed to hold the post on in-charge basis, he has been allowed to continue for about 2 years which amounted to discr imination against the writ petitioner. The appellant in his affidavit-in-opposition did not dispute that the wr it petitioner was senior in the grade of Section Officer Gr. I (Civil). Only def ence taken was that the writ petitioner had been given benefit of Assured Career Progression Scheme and ad-hoc arrangement does not affect right to regular prom otion. Learned Single Judge held that action of giving charge of higher post to the appellant, ignoring the seniority of the writ petitioner was violative of A rticle 16 of the Constitution of India. Article 16 could not be ignored even for temporary/ad-hoc arrangement. Reliance was placed on Government of AP -Vs- AV Venugopala Rao, 1995 (1) SCC 179 and K Thimmappa & ors. Vs. Chairman, Central Bo ard of Directors, State Bank of India & anr., (2001) 2 SCC 259. Learned counsel for the appellant and the learned State counsel, Manipur did not dispute that the writ petitioner is senior to appellant. There is also no dispute with the legal proposition that in absence of any valid reason, senio rity is required to be taken into account, even for temporary arrangement. Their only contention is that the writ petitioner had already been given financial be nefit as per ACP scheme and chance of regular promotion is not adversely affecte d by the impugned order. After due consideration of the submission made, we do not find any error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The writ petitioner was entitled to be considered for the charge of higher post and the appellant could not be p referred over the writ petitioner, without a valid reason. Thus, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.