WP(C) 5526/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. The petitioners involved in these writ petitions are the incharge-Headma sters of M.E/M.V. schools. Their grievance is in respect of preparation of the Select List for regular promotion to the post of Headmaster. Since the issue in volved is the one and the same, they have been heard together and are being disp osed of by this common order. The post of Headmaster of M.E/M.V. Schools is a promotional post and the appointment to the said post is required to be made on the basis of the seniori ty-cum-efficiency on the recommendation of the District Level Committee to be co nstituted by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam in exercise of the powe rs conferred under Section 27(1) of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincializ ation) Act, 1974 and Section 3(3) of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincializ ation) Act, 1977. The procedure for promotion to the post of Headmaster of M.E/ M.E. Madrassa/M.V. and Senior Basic Schools has been laid down vide notification dated 30.8.1986. As per the said procedure, the District Level Committee shall publish a sub-division-wise Gradation List of teachers in order of seniority sho wing the date of appointment, educational qualification, year of passing the tra ining, age on the date of appointment, the date of retirement etc. and the same should be communicated to all the incumbents with copies to all concerned author ities for information. The teachers having less than 10 years of continuous serv ice, shall not be considered for promotion. The other criteria for such selectio n have also been laid down in the said procedure. According to the petitioners, the aforesaid procedure for promotion to t he post of Headmaster of M.E/M.V. Schools has not been followed and consequently , their names have been included in the Gradation List and so also, in the Selec t List at wrong places. As per the averments made in the writ petitions, the pet itioners are the senior-most teachers of their respective schools and have been allowed to hold the charge of Headmaster due to retirement of the regular incumb ents. According to the petitioners, they had submitted representation dated 26.1 1.2007 against the Gradation List published on 21.7.2007. For a ready reference, Annexure-1 representation dated 26.11.2007 is quoted below :- To The District Elementary Education Officer, Hailakandi. Sub :- representation Re regarding anomalies in the gradation List and review t hereof. Ref :- Your order No.6449/57 dated 21.11.2007. Sir, With due respect we the undersigned i/c Head master of certain M.E. School beg t o draw your kind attention to the following fact for favour of kind necessary ac tion. That it is seen that the gradation list is made without due wait age to the seni ority, some senior teacher drop from the list with showing proper cause. That the gradation was not year marked against the school or place of pos in ord er of seniority. That in the gradation date of joining is not conformity with their date of joini ng as per record. It is further seen that some teacher suppressed the actual fact in order to mark ed their name in dissenting manner. That in the gradation list state of position of in charge Head master was ignore d though most of them are senior and experienced teacher. Likewise the above some in experience and zero enrolment school have no knowledg e meant in caring a school are enrolled in the list. That is why we have strong objection against the so called gradation list for wh ich we urge you for natural justice and also to ensure that no letches should be involved in this regard otherwise better chance in manipulate the record/data o therwise we oblige and rule of law. Yours faithfully, Date 26.11.07 Sd/- The Select List for promotion to the post of Headmaster was published vide notif ication dated 10.6.2008 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) in which, although the names of the petitioners appeared but considering their positions, there being no chance of promotion to the post of Headmaster, they have filed the instant wr it petitions claiming irregularity in drawing the Gradation List as well as Sele ct List. In the counter affidavit filed by the official and the private respondents, the stand of the petitioners in the writ petitions has been denied. It has been sta ted that the District Level Selection Committee by its resolution No.2 adopted i n its meeting held on 15.10.2007 resolved to follow the aforesaid procedure laid down in the notification dated 30.8.1986 and thereafter, to proceed with the ma tter in accordance with law. It has been stated that the eligible teachers with requisite qualification had been called for the selection and thereafter, based on the service particulars and their performance etc., the final Select List was drawn. It has further been stated that while publishing the Gradation List, obj ections were invited and on receipt of such objections, the final Gradation List as well as the Select List was published. As regards the claims of the petition ers that they have been appointed prior in point of time than the dates indicate d in the Gradation List/Select List, it is the stand of the official respondents that the dates as has been shown by the petitioners’ are the dates of appointme nt made by the Managing Committees of the respective schools at a time when the schools were at venture stage. The private respondents in their affidavits, have brought on record the fact tha t the final Select List was published and in fact, in their applications for vac ating the stay, registered and numbered as Misc. Case No.222/2009, they have ann exed copy of the Select List. As per the averments made in the said application as well as in the counter affidavit filed by the private respondents, the final Select List has already been acted upon by appointing the selected persons to th e post of Headmaster. However, in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 23.12.2008, a confusion and chaos has been created. Thus, according to the p rivate respondents, the Select List in question was already stood implemented wh en the interim order dated 23.12.2008 was passed providing that the respondents may proceed with the task of preparing the Select List but would not finalize th e same. There is no dispute that the petitioners, after publication of the Gradation Lis t, although purportedly raised objection to the same by the above quoted represe ntation, participated in the selection process. In fact, their names have also b een included in the Select List but their grievance is that since their posittio ns are down below in the Select List, their chances of being promoted to the pos t of Headmaster is remote. It is in this context, the respondents have raised th e plea of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence. It is their stand that since the p etitioners duly participated in the entire selection process, cannot now turn ar ound the same so as to claim that the Gradation List was drawn incorrectly and c onsequently, the Select List is also bad in law. I have heard Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitio ners as well as Mr. J. Islam, learned counsel appearing for the private responde nts. I have also heard Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Education Departme nt, who has produced the records. The records have revealed that the meeting of the District Level Selection Commi ttee which was held on 15.10.2007, resolved to publish the Gradation List and ac cordingly, same was published by inviting objections. The objections received fr om the teachers were duly considered and thereafter, the final Gradation List wa s published. The committee in its meeting held on 5.5.2008 considered all the re levant materials including the performance in the oral interview, based on which the committee made the recommendation for appointment of Headmaster/Headmistres s against the existing vacancies. In the process, the names of the petitioners w ere also recommended for such appointment i.e. their names have also been inclu ded in the Select List. However, it is submitted by Mr. Mazumdar, learned Sr. co unsel appearing for the petitioners that due to wrong recording of relevant part iculars, the petitioners have been shown to be junior to many others and consequ ently, their names have been included down below in the Select List. Countering the above argument, Mr. Islam, learned counsel appearing for the priv ate respondents submits that the petitioners being the incharge Headmasters of t he schools are aggrieved by the fact that in the Select List, their names have a ppeared down below, as a result of which, they may not get regular promotion to the post of Headmaster. According to him, all the writ petitions have been file d only to make out a case with the sole purpose of continuing in the capacity of incharge Headmaster. Mr. Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department also submits that since the Select List was drawn following the relevant procedure, the writ Court exer cising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of Ind ia, will be reluctant to sit on appeal over the exercise carried out by an exper t body, like the selection committee. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties an d have gone through the entire materials on record. The procedure for selection of Headmaster, as has been laid down in the notification dated 30.8.1986 has bee n indicated above. The Select List is to contain the relevant particulars of the candidates, such as, the date of appointment, educational qualification, the ye ar of passing of training, age on the date of appointment, the date of retiremen t etc. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, neither in the Grad ation List nor in the Select List, the relevant particulars have been included. On perusal of the Gradation List and the Select List, what is found is that in the said lists, the names of the incumbents, designation, qualification, the dat e of recommended service/date of receiving the Time Scale of Pay, the date of bi rth etc. have been recorded. In absence of any specific pleading as to how the c ase of the petitioners was prejudiced in absence of non-mentioning of any parti culars, merely on the assertion that some particulars have not been mentioned in the Gradation List/Select List that by itself will not render the Gradation Lis t and the Select List illegal. That apart, on perusal of the Gradation List and the Select List, what is found is that all the relevant particulars, necessary for selection have been indicated in the said list. Mr. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioners by producing a written brief submits that as against the dates of appointment mentioned in the Gradati on List/Select List pertaining to the petitioners involved in WP(C) No.5526/2008 , their respective dates of appointment are different. These particular plea now raised at the time of hearing of the writ petitions was never raised in the pur ported representation dated 26.11.2007 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition). The co ntents of the said representation have been quoted above. On perusal of the entire materials on records, what is found is that the Distric t Level Selection Committee duly followed the procedure for promotion to the pos t of Headmaster, as has been laid down in the notification dated 30.8.1986. Alt hough the petitioners made a purported grievance against the Gradation List, not hing specific was stated in the representation as to how the said Gradation List was defective. Not only that, they appeared in the oral interview, which was c onducted by the committee and it is only after inclusion of their names in the S elect List at a place not convenient and not suitable to them, they filed the in stant writ petitions. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petitions and accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed. The interim order passed stands vacated.