WP(C) 3952/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T VAIPHEI Heard MH Rajbarbhuiya, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr D S aikia, the learned Addl. Advocate General, Assam assisted by Mr AD Choudhury, th e learned standing counsel for the Education Department. In the course of motion hearing, the learned counsel for the pet itioner has confined himself to the question as to whether the State respondents should be directed to consider the representation of the petitioner for appoint ing him as a Headmaster of Gulezar Ali Mazumdar ME School on in-charge basis aft er the retirement on superannuation of the respondent No.5. The petitioner is st ated to be the senior most Assistant teacher of this ME School. He was appointed as Assistant teacher by the Managing Committee of the School on 10.02.1979. In the gradation list prepared in the year 2008 for the post of Headmaster and also the select list prepared by the District Elementary Education Officer for selec ting teacher to fill up future vacancies for the posts of Headmaster in the Dist rict of Cachar, his name was also reflected in the said lists, but not the names of other Assistant Teachers. According to the petitioner, the respondent No.6, who is the Headmaster of the said School, is going to retire on superannuation o n 31.10.2011. Being the senior most teacher in the school, he submitted his repr esentation on 14.05.2011 addressed to the respondent No.3 for appointing him as in-charge Headmaster of the said ME School. He, however, apprehends that the Sta te respondents may appoint some other persons as in-charge Headmaster by overloo king his case. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the pet itioner in the course of hearing, this writ petition does not survive for consid eration at this stage and is accordingly disposed of by directing the respondent No.3 to consider the representation of the petitioner filed by him on 14.05.201 1 and take a decision thereon in accordance with law on or before the date of re tirement of the respondent No.5. It is made clear that this order shall not come in the way of ma king regular appointment of the post in question.