WP(C) 177/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. . Both the writ petitions, based on the same issue, have been heard togeth er and are being disposed of by this common order. While in WP(C) No.177/2010, the petitioner has assailed the Annexure-15 order dated 6.1.2010, by which the Respondent No.4 has been allowed to hold the current charge of In-charge Principal of the school namely, Bidyapara Boys’ H.S. School, Dhubri in addition to his normal duties, in WP(C) No.1046/2010, the pet itioner has challenged the Gradation List dated 29.12.2009 published by the Prin cipal of the school. In the aforesaid Gradation List, the petitioner in WP(C) No.177/2010 has been placed at Sl. No.1 while the petitioner in WP(C) No.1046/2010 has been pla ced at Sl. No.2. On the other hand, the Respondent No.4 in WP(C) No.177/2010 has been shown at Sl. No.7. If we go by the respective dates of appointment of the three incumbents, undoubtedly the Respondent No.4 is senior to both the writ pet itioners, his date of joining being 9.9.1977 as against the petitioners’ dates o f joining 3.9.1984 and 30.9.1977 respectively. The whole controversy has arisen in view of the fact that the petitioner in WP(C) No.1046/2010 and the Respondent No.4 in WP(C) No.177/2010 were transfe rred to the present school on 11.1.1985 and 10.1.1986 respectively. The officia l respondents have construed that their such transfer would entail loss of seniority and they will be entitled to get seniority in the present school only from 11.1.1985 and 10.1.1986 respectively. On the other hand, the petitioner in WP(C) No.177/2010 having been appointed in the school on 3.9.1984, he would ran k senior to the said two incumbents. It is on the above basis, the petitioner has made challenge to the order dated 6.1.2010 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) by which the Respondent No.4 has been allowed to work as In-charge Principal. On the other hand, the petition er in WP(C) No.1046/2010 has impugned the Gradation List (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) prepared by the Principal by which he has been shown junior to the pe titioner in WP(C) No.177/2010. I have heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel representing the petitioner i n WP(C) No.177/2010 as well as Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel represent ing the petitioner in WP(C) No.1046/2010. I have also heard Mr. D.K. Das, learne d counsel representing the respondent in WP(C) No.177/2010, who has filed Misc. Case No.508/2010 seeking vacation of the interim order operating in WP(C) No.177 /2010. Be it stated here that by the said interim order dated 11.1.2010, interim direction was issued to maintain status quo in respect of the post of Principal of the school as was obtained on the date of the order i.e. 11.1.2010. It is su bmitted that on the strength of the said order, the petitioner in WP(C) No.177/2 010 is functioning as Principal-in-Charge of the school. The aforesaid facts would necessarily lead us to the transfer orders which are t he basis to deprive the petitioner in WP(C) No.1046/2010 of his seniority and th e contention of the petitioner in WP(C) No.177/2010 that the Respondent No.4 cannot get his e arlier length of service rendered in a different school. The transfer order in question in respect of the Respondent No.4 has been annexe d to Misc. Case No.508/2010 as Annexure-2. The order is said to be passed on 28 .12.1985, by which altogether 10 subject teachers in English were transferred to different schools and the Respondent No.4 was one of them. In the order, there is no whisper that such transfer would entail loss of seniority to the incumben ts. It is also not reflected that the Respondent No.4 was transferred on his ow n request. Thus, on the face of it, there cannot be any loss of seniority so far as the Respondent No.4, who was transferred to the present school by the said o rder dated 28.12.1985 is concerned. Merely because he was transferred, it canno t be said that he will have to count his seniority in the new school from the da te of joining forfeiting his earlier length of service. In WP(C) No.1046/2010, the petitioner was transferred to the present sch ool by order dated 24.12.1984. Although it was indicated that the petitioner wou ld not be entitled to T.A.& D.A. but in the order, there is nothing to indicate that the same would entail loss of seniority to the petitioner. It is also not m entioned that such transfer of the petitioner was on his own request. In view of the above, it was wrong on the part of the Principal of the s chool to assign lower seniority to the petitioner in WP(C) No.1046/2010. There is another aspect of the matter. Both the aforesaid orders were is sued prior to coming into force the provisions of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 20 03 on which the learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.177/2010 has placed reliance. The said ru les do not have any retrospective application. Prior to the said Rules of 2003, the service conditions of the teachers were governed by the Assam Secondary Educ ation (Provincialised) Service Rules, 1982. Under Rule 13 of the said Rules, th e seniority is to be counted taking into account the date of joining, continuous length of service and date of birth. In the said rules, there was no indication that the incumbents upon transfer, even on request, would forfeit the past serv ice and their seniority would be counted in the new school from the date of join ing. The issue is no longer res integra and the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in (2006) SUPPL 1 GLT 493 (Abdul Matin Talukdar v. Hari charan Medhi & Ors) has held that unless it is indicated in the order itself tha t the particular transfer order would entail loss of seniority, the incumbent tr ansferred cannot be adversely affected. Similar view of the learned Single Judge in Jiten Thakuria v. State of Assam & Ors reported in (2009) 5 GLR 540 has also been affirmed by the Division Bench in its judgment and order dated 24.6.2009 i n Writ Appeal No.326/2006. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petit ion being WP(C) No.177/2010 and accordingly, it is dismissed. It is hereby held that the Respondent No.4 being senior to the petitioner has been rightly confer red Principal in-Charge-ship by the impugned order dated 6.1.2010 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition). Consequently, the inter im order passed on 11.1.2010 stands vacated. In view of the above finding, the writ petition being WP(C) No.1046/2010 is allowed holding that the petitioner would rank senior to the petitioner in WP(C) No.177/2010, who has also been arrayed as Respondent No.7 in the writ peti tion i.e. WP(C) No.1046/2010. Accordingly, the Gradation List in question stands corrected to that effect. Both the writ petitions are answered in the above manner.