WP(C) 2944/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA Heard Mr. R.C. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.4. The question involved in this writ petition is as to whether it is the p etitioner or the respondent No.4 is required to be allowed to act as In-charge H ead Master of the School namely Hindi Vidyalaya High School, Rangia. The petitio ner is aggrieved by Annexure-4 order dated 26.4.2010, by which it is the respond ent No.4, who has been allowed to hold the charge of Head Master of the School. Upon a reference to the provisions of the relevant rules for appointment to the post of Head Master, while it is the submission of Mr. Saikia, learned c ounsel for the petitioner is that the respondent No.4 being not qualified, canno t be allowed to hold the charge of Head Master. It is the submission of Mr. Sahe walla, learned sr. counsel for the respondent No.4 that qualification might play a role in the event of regular promotion but for holding the charge temporarily , the senior most teacher should allowed to hold the charge without insisting on the said qualification. Mr. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel for the respondent No.4 submits th at the petitioner does not have any legal right to challenge the impugned order when the same is only by way of temporary arrangement pending regular selection. Mr. R.C. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his ar gument, has placed reliance on the decision of this court report in (2007) 3 GLT 389 (Jagannath Pegu Vs. State of Assam & Ors), in which this court taking note of the relevant provisions of the Recruitment Rules, has observed that it is too fundamental to state that a candidate eligible in terms of the relevant rules for promotion to the a post on regular basis, cannot be overlooked for the purpo se of any temporary arrangement concerning the post. In the instant case, although the respondent No.4 is senior to the petit ioner but he does not posses the requisite qualification for regular promotion t o the post of Head Master. In this connection, Rule 14 (4) of the Assam Secondar y Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 2003, which is relevant for the purp ose is quoted below :- 4. Eligibility for the post of Head Master/Head Mistress/Superinte ndent/Assistant Head Master/Asstt. Head Mistress/Assistant Superintendent of Hig h/High Madrassa School as the case may be : (i) The minimum qualification for the post of Head Master / Headmistress / S uperintendent / Asstt. Headmaster/ Assistant Head Mistress / Assistant Superinte ndent shall be graduate in Arts, Science or Commerce with B.T. or B. Ed. Degree. (ii) He/She must possess at least 10 years teaching experience as Graduate Te acher. (iii) He/She must possess at least seven years of teaching experience as Gradu ate Teacher to be an Assistant Head Master / Head Mistress / Assistant Superinte ndent. On perusal of the aforesaid provisions of the rules, what is seen is that for pr omotion to the post of Head Master, a candidate will have to be a graduate with B.T. or B.Ed. degree. The petitioner is MA with B.Ed degree. On the other hand, the respondent No.4 is not a general degree holder but claims to be an MA in Sha stri, which is said to be recognised as degree for appointment as Assistant Teac her. While it is true that the respondent No.4 is senior to the petitioner but he lac ks in the requisite educational qualification. Thus, in my considered opinion, e ven for temporary appointment, he cannot stack his claim solely on the basis of seniority alone. If he is not eligible for regular promotion, he is also not eli gible for temporary appointment for the post. The impugned order dated 26.4.2010 (Annexure-4) has been passed by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, without considering the above aspect of the matte r and it appears that the respondent No.4 was allowed to hold the charge of Head Master solely on the basis of his seniority but without considering as to wheth er as per the Recruitment Rules, he is eligible to hold the post. If he is not e ligible to hold the post on regular basis, there is no question of giving him in direct promotion to the said post. Consequently, the Annexure-4 order dated 26.4 .2010 is not sustainable in law and accordingly the said order is set aside and quashed. The respondents shall now pass appropriate order allowing the senior most teache r of the School with requisite qualification to hold the charge of Head Master. Consequential order in term of this order shall be passed by the respondents as expeditiously as possible but at any rate not latter then 30.11.2010.