Das J. — This Civil Rule is connected to Civil Rule Nos. 390 of 1987 and Civil Rule No. 527 of 1987 of which we have disposed of by the common judgment and order. The petitioner Shri Harendra Kumar Borgohain has challenged the Resolution No. 1 passed by the Governing Body of the Dhemaji college in its meeting held on 29.11.86 recommending the appointment of Respondent No. 5 as Vice Principal of the Dhemaji College. The contention of the petitioner is that he is a Post Graduate degree holder in Assamese subject from the University of Gauhati and he had a brilliant record to his credit as a student in his career. He joined the Dhemaji college on 26.9.66 and since then he has been serving in the College with all sincerity at his disposal. The petitioner claims that he is the second senior most teacher immediately after the Principal in the college. One Shri Ranjit Bhuttachryya being his senior is not maintaining good health and as such, he intimated the college authorities that he is not interested to hold the post of Vice Principal of the college as his health did not permit him to take the onerous duties of the Vice Principal of the college. The petitioner claims that the Governing Body of the college by its resolution dated 29.11.86 appointed Respondent No. 5 Shri Padadhar Dewri as Vice Principal of the college. A seniority list is also enclosed in his writ petition showing the position of Padadhar Dewri in the aforesaid seniority list. According to the said seniority list Shri Padadhar Dewri, Respondent No. 5, holds the 5th position and the petitioner's name has been shown as 2nd senior most teacher in the college. In this case a preliminary point has been raised by Mr. Khetri, the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 5 that this petition may not be entertained due to long delay in approaching this Court with this writ petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel that as far back in the year 1975 the Respondent No. 5 was appointed as Vice Principal of the college and thereafter after holding the said post for sometime he again acted as Vice Principal of the college upto 1983. It is submitted by the learned counsel that as far back in the year 1975 the Respondent No. 5 was appointed as Vice Principal of the college and thereafter after holding the said post for sometime he again acted as Vice Principal of the college upto 1983. The petitioner filed a civil suit which ended in compromise between the parties and in view of that compromise the Respondent No. 5 was appointed as Vice Principal of the college in November, 1986 by the impugned Resolution and as such, the question of appointment of the petitioner as Vice Principal of the college does not arise. Moreover, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the provision of the Assam College Employees Rules is attracted in the case of the present petitioner. Referring to Rule 12 it is submitted by Mr. Khetri that the remedy of the petitioner to ventilate his grievance lies in a different forum and the petitioner having failed to avail that remedy, he cannot now invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution bypassing the provisions of Rule 12 of the aforesaid Rules. Referring to seniority list it is submitted by Mr. Khetri that the list was prepared after the resolution of the Managing Committee was adopted in November, 1986 appointing the Respondent No. 5 as Vice Principal of the College. Since the seniority list is a disputed document, as submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent, this Court will certainly not entertain the list to be authentic one for the purpose of determination of the issue raised in this writ petition. We have already observed in our judgment rendered in Civil Rule Nos. 390 of 1987 and 527 of 1987 that neither Respondent No. 2, the Director of Public Instruction has produced any documents nor filed any affidavit-in-opposition in this case also. The college authority, namely, the Respondent No. 4 has not produced any documents maintained by the college authority to apprise us with actual facts in this regard. The learned counsel submits that it is admitted fact that the Respondent No. 5 was once appointed a Vice Principal even for a temporary period and the civil suit instituted by the present petitioner was abandoned from contest and as such he cannot challenge the same in this writ petition. The learned counsel submits that it is admitted fact that the Respondent No. 5 was once appointed a Vice Principal even for a temporary period and the civil suit instituted by the present petitioner was abandoned from contest and as such he cannot challenge the same in this writ petition. Moreover, the Resolution dated 29.11.86 adopted by the Governing Body of the Dhemji College was approved by the Director of Public Instruction vide his letter No. G (A) RC 47/84/303 dated 27.3.87. 3. Let us now examine the stand taken by the petitioner in his writ petition. The sole contention as raised by Mr. A.R. Barthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent No. 5 ought not-to have been appointed as Vice Principal of the Dhemaji College inasmuch as the seniority list which has been produced by the petitioner &S pet Annexure-D to this petition clearly shows that the name of respondent No. 5 in the seniority list appears in the fifth position and his seniority has been counted on the basis of requisite qualification on and from 26.8.70. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, approval of the Governing Body-'s resolution No. 1 dated 29.11.86 for appointment of the respondent No. 5 as the Vice Principal of the Dhemaji College by the Director of Public Instructions by his letter dated 27th March, 1987 being not in accordance with the seniority list maintained in the college cannot be accepted as valid approval at all. It would be worth mentioning here that the principle of law and the provisions of the relevant rules, namely, Assam Aided Management Rules, 1976 along with other relevant provisions have already been discussed in connected Civil Rule No. 390/87 and Civil Rule No. 527 of 1987 disposed of on 21.9.87. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the ratio as to the findings upon those rules and its binding effect would be applicable in this case. Moreover, the point agitated in this case is simple and short and only on the question of appointment of respon­dent No. 5 as Vice Principal of Dhemaji College and the validity of approval of his appointment. 4. To appreciate the contentions raised by Mr. Khetri the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, let us consider the stand taken by the contesting respondent in paragraph 8 of the affidavit in opposition. 4. To appreciate the contentions raised by Mr. Khetri the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, let us consider the stand taken by the contesting respondent in paragraph 8 of the affidavit in opposition. A clear stand has been taken by contesting respondent that even if the seniority list as annexed to the petition as per Annexure-D is accepted to be correct, yet Shri Ranjit Bhattacharyee being the senior most lecturer of the college has not been made a party to this petition and the writ petitioner has failed to show any documentary evidence that the senior most lecturer Shri Ranjit Bhattacharyee ever expressed his inability to take the burden of onerous duties of Vice Principal of the college. It is further stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that the respondent No. 5 was appointed to the post of Vice Principal of the college once in 1975 and thereafter he was further appointed in the said post. This was never opposed by the present petitioner. From resolution No. 2 as per Annexure-XVIII to (he affidavit-in-opposition it appears that respondent No. 5 was allowed to join as Vice Principal within 6.12.86 without service break since 10.7.75. This resolution was adopted on 29.11.86 which has been challenged by the petitioner. Another annexure i.e. Annexure-XXII to the affidavit-in-opposition also speaks that Shri B.C. Pegu as Principal and Secretary of the College informed respondent No, 5 about his continuance of service as honorary lecturer of the college with effect from 25.3.66. Even if the seniority list as per Annexure-D to the writ petition is accepted to be correct yet as the name of the petitioner has been shown in second position and Shri Ranjit Bhattacharyee being senior to him, the submission of the petiti­oner cannot be accepted to the effect that he be appointed as Vice Principal of the college by-passing the seniority of Shri Ranjit Bhatta­charyee. If this stand of the petitioner is accepted the senior most-c lecturer of the college, namely, Shri Ranjit Bhattacharyee who is not before us would be highly prejudiced and it would affect his service career to claim as senior most lecturer eligible to be appointed as Vice Principal of the college in near future. If this stand of the petitioner is accepted the senior most-c lecturer of the college, namely, Shri Ranjit Bhattacharyee who is not before us would be highly prejudiced and it would affect his service career to claim as senior most lecturer eligible to be appointed as Vice Principal of the college in near future. One facet cannot be lost sight of that even the seniority list (Annexure-D) clearly shows that respondent No. 5 was appointed earlier to the appointment of the petitioner in the said college and he was appointed as Vice Principal of the college in 1975 and there was no objection raised by the petitioner in this regard. The claim of the petitioner was abandoned with the termination of his civil suit on the basis of the compromise arrived at between the parties in contest. Therefore, it would not be possible to hold that the petitioner whose position appears to be second in number as per his own document, namely Annexure-D, has any legal and valid claim for the post of the Vice Principal of the college. 5. On scrutiny of the respective stand of the parties and on perusal of the contentions raised by the parties in their respective petition, affidavits and the annexures we can express our irresistible conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition on the Ground that his petition has no merit. We therefore, dismiss this petition. Parties shall bear their own cost. I agree Sd/ T. C. Das Sd/ J. M. Srivastava Judge