WP(C) 2010/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. . Heard Mr. M.H. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. J. Islam, learned counsel representing the Respondent No.4. I have also hear d Mr. S.K. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Education. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 7.5.2008 (Annexure-’D’ to the writ petition), by which the Respondent No.4 has been posted as Headmaster of Tinsukia MEM against a vacant post. According to the petitioner, he being the senior most teacher of the school, he is entitle d to hold charge of the post of Headmaster and that the Respondent No.4 being no t regularly selected Headmaster, is not entitled to be posted in the school. In fact, for some period, the petitioner was the Headmaster-in-charge of the school . According to the Respondent No.4, pursuant to the aforesaid Annexure-’D’ impug ned order dated 7.5.2008, the petitioner had handed over charge to him, but late r on, on the strength of the interim order passed by this Court, insisted for hi s continuance as Headmaster-in-charge. Merely because the petitioner was allowed to act as Headmaster-in-charge of the school, he cannot stop regular appointment. In this connection, I may g ain to refer to the decision of the Apex Court reported in (1996) 10 SCC 567 (Sr eedam Chandra Ghosh v. State of Assam & Ors) in which, the Apex Court dealing wi th the identical case, observed that such officiation as Headmaster-in-charge by the senior most teacher of the school is only a stop-gap-arrangement and thus, when a regular Headmaster of another school is transferred to another school as Headmaster, the in-charge-Headmaster will have to make room for him. The said ca se was from this Court. As regards the second plea of the petitioner that the Respondent No.4 i s not a selected candidate, what has transpired is that the Respondent No.4 was earlier promoted by order dated 21.7.2007. The said order was passed pursuant to the order passed by this Court in WP(C) No.1664/2004; WP(C) No.2108/2004 and WP (C) No.586/2006. By the said order, it was held that the Respondent No.4 was a r egularly promoted Headmaster. By yet another order dated 4.8.2007, the petition er was so promoted to the post of Headmaster of the particular school. One Mrs. Halima Khatun being aggrieved by the said order dated 4.8.2007 filed a writ petition being WP(C) No.4196/2007. The writ petition was adjudicat ed upon by order dated 18.1.2.2007. By the said order, the order dated 4.8.2007 so far as the same cancelled the appointment of Mrs. Halima Khatun was interf erred with. However, there was no interference with the second part of the orde r, by which the Respondent No.4 was promoted to the post of Headmaster. Apart f rom such non-interference, further observation was made that the Government may consider the case of the Respondent No.4 for appointment to the post of Headmast er in any vacant post. It was pursuant to the impugned order dated 7.5.2008 (Annexure-’D’ to th e writ petition) was passed posting the petitioner to the present school of whic h the petitioner was the Headmaster-in-charge for some time. Since the Responde nt No.4 was already regularly promoted Headmaster of another school, it was with in the competence and jurisdiction of the authority to post him as Headmaster in the present school. Although the petitioner has challenged the Annexure-’D’ order dated 7.5. 2008, but he has not challenged the order dated 21.7.2007 and 4.8.2007, by which the Respondent No.4 was promoted to the post of Headmaster. The petitioner has questioned the appointment of the Respondent No.4 as Headmaster as according to him, the said respondent is not a selected candidate. In this connection, the learned counsel representing the Respondent No.4 has d rawn my attention to the Select List dated 13.9.2004, in which the Respondent No .4’s name appeared at Sl. No.255. Thus, he was already a selected candidate for appointment to the post of Headmaster. Be that as it may, the Respondent No.4 h aving already been appointed as Headmaster by the aforesaid two orders dated 21. 7.2007 and 4.8.2007 (Annexure-I & II to the counter affidavit filed by the Respo ndent No.2) and the same having not been challenged, merely because, the Respond ent No.4 has been posted to the present school by the impugned order dated 7.5.2 008, no interference is called for in the said order. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated.