In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner impugns Notifications dated 25.10.89 and 2.11.89 (Annexures 9 and 10). By notification dated 25th October, 1989 (Annexure 9) the petitioner was directed to resume the work of Vice Principal, Government Higher Secondary School on ad-hoc basis. Notification dated 2nd November, 1989 (Annexere 10) directs the petitioner to hand over charge of Principal of Government Higher Secondary School, Aizawl to respondent 3. 2. The facts of the case may be narrated briefly. The petitioner was appointed as teacher in the Government Higher Secondary School on 12.5.53. At that time he had passed Intermediate Science (I. Sc). It may however, be stated that subsequently he obtained the Degree of Bachelor of Arts (BA) in 1960. The petitioner obtained the Degree of Bachelor of Education (BEd) some time in 1976. By notification dated 19.6.87, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Vice Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Aizawl wef 28.9.81. At this stage it may he stated that Recruitment Rules of Mizoram Education and Human Resources Department (Group A Posts) were framed in 1987 and another set of Rules in respect of Group B Posts were framed in 1988, In terms of 1988 Rules, the post of Principal is to be filled up 100% by promotion failing which by transfer on deputation. The next lower post from which promotion is to be made is Vice Principal, TTI/Govt. Higher Secondary School/Headmaster Govt High School/with at least five (5) years regular service in the Grade. In case of transfer on deputation one must hold equival­ent post in Education Department of Mizoram/other State Governments/ Central Government (period of deputation including period of deputation in another Ex-cadre post) held immediately preceding this appointment in the same or some other organisation/Department shall ordinarily exceed three years. 3. During the period of leave of the Principal the petitioner was directed to take over charge of the post of Principal in addition to his own duties by Government order dated 7th August, 1986. By another order dated 6th March 1987, the petitioner was again directed to take over charge of Principal in addition to his own duty during the leave period of the Principal. Accordingly the petitioner took over the charge of the Principal for the aforesaid period and he was given the scale of pay of the Principal i.e. Rs. 3,700j- Rs.5,000/- PM for the aforesaid period. Accordingly the petitioner took over the charge of the Principal for the aforesaid period and he was given the scale of pay of the Principal i.e. Rs. 3,700j- Rs.5,000/- PM for the aforesaid period. Pay slip was accordingly issued by the office of the Director, Accounts and Treasuries on 18 April, 1989 showing the pay scale of the petitioner as Rs. 3,700/-. This was done in compliance with Government letter addressed to the Deputy Director (Entitlements) Accounts and Treasu­ries, Mizoram regarding the appointment of the petitioner as Principal and also request for issuance of necessary pay slip. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Principal on ad-hoc basis in the scale of pay of Rs. 3,000-100-3,500-125-4,500 PM wef 8.6.88 until further orders. It is contended that the petitioner's basic pay as on 1.3.89 was Rs.3,950/- and at that time he was drawing Rs. 5,530/- as his total emoluments PM. 4. While the petitioner was serving as Principal consequent to the Government order dated 15th November, 1988, the Government issued another order dated 25.10.89 promoting the respondent 3 to the post of Principal in place of the petitioner and directing the petitioner to resume the work of the Vice Principal of the same school. By order dated 2.11.89, the petitioner was directed to hand over charge of Principal to respondent 3. According to the petitioner directing him to resume charge as Vice Principal amounts to reduc­tion in rank. Hence it is submitted that instead of serving as Vice Principal, the petitioner took leave and did not resume the work of Vice Principal. 5. The petitioner filed representation to the Government but to no effect. 6. It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner served as Principal wef 8.3.87 to 27.10 89 drawing the salary of the Principal. As stated above the scale of pay of the Principal is Rs 3,700-Rs.5,000 whereas the scale pay of Headmaster of Government High School is Rs.2,000 - Rs.3,500. In this background the learned counsel submits that the respondent 3 could not have been promoted to the post of Principal in place of the petitioner inasmuch as to do so would amount to redaction of rank of the petitioner. In this background the learned counsel submits that the respondent 3 could not have been promoted to the post of Principal in place of the petitioner inasmuch as to do so would amount to redaction of rank of the petitioner. At the same time it is also contended that since the petitioner had been enjoying a much higher scale of pay than the respondent 3, it is impermissible that respondent 3 should have been promoted to the post of Principal in place of the petitioner. It is stated that respondent 3 was appointed temporarily on ad-hoc basis to the post of Headmaster Hnahthial Government High School by Government order dated 25.1.1972 in the scale of pay of Rs.350-925 PM. It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that whereas the petitioner was appointed on regular basis as Vice Principal in 1981, the appointment of respondent 3 as Headmaster has not been regularised till today. It is further contended that since the petitioner joined service in the Education Depart­ment as early as in 1953 and Confirmed in the service in 1958 there are no reasonable grounds for treating the petitioner to be junior to respondent 3 in terms of the impugned final inter se seniority list dated 15.1.89. It may be stated that in the inter se seniority list the name of the petitioner appears at serial 10. The petitioner has been shown to have joined as Vice Principal, Government Higher Secondary School since 28 9.81. The name of respondent 3 appears at serial 1 and is shown to have joined the post of Headmaster Government High School, Hnahthial since 1.11.72. 7. It is submitted that the petitioner's name ought not to have been included in this seniority list inasmuch as the petitioner was already serving as Principal of the Higher Secondary School since 1987. Another contention of the petitioner is that since he had already served as Principal for over 2£ years it is not permissible for the authority to include his name in the seniority list for the posts of Headmaster/Vice Principal, Government Higher Secondary School/Teachers Training Institute etc. 8. I have heard Mr. S. Sailo, learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned Deputy Advocate General, Government of Mizoram. 8. I have heard Mr. S. Sailo, learned counsel for the petitioner and also learned Deputy Advocate General, Government of Mizoram. The main contention on behalf of the Government of Mizoram is that since the appoint­ment as Principal of respondent 3 was made on the basis of inter se seniority there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 25.10.89. It is contended that the petitioner was holding the post of Principal only in the absence of the regular incumbent and therefore in such a case the petitioner cannot claim to have any right to continue to hold the post of the Principal and that there­fore the petitioner cannot take grievance when respondent 3 has been promoted to the post of Principal in his place. It is further submitted on behalf of the Government that since the name of the petitioner appears at serial 10 in the inter se seniority list there are still several other officers who are senior to the petitioner and in such a situation to allow the claim of the petitioner will create multiplicity of cases and also confusion in the Department. 9. It is stated at the Bar that the petitioner will retire in February, 1994 on attaining the age of superannuation. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it would be fair and equitable to allow the petitioner to continue as Principal inasmuch as the petitioner has served the Education Department faithfully since 1953. 10. I have given careful consideration to the submissions made on behalf of the parties. I have also examined various documents filed by the parties. Admittedly the petitioner has rendered service as Principal of Higher Secondary School for 21/2 years enjoying the full scale of pay prescribed for the post of Principal. Evidently on earlier occasion the petitioner was directed to take charge of the Principal in addition to his own duties. However, as stated above wef 8.3.87 the petitioner began to work as Principal enjoying the scale of pay prescribed for the Principal. When suddenly therefore respondent 3 was promoted to the post of Principal in his place asking him to resume work as the Vice Principal under respondent 3, the petitioner was aggrieved. However, as stated above wef 8.3.87 the petitioner began to work as Principal enjoying the scale of pay prescribed for the Principal. When suddenly therefore respondent 3 was promoted to the post of Principal in his place asking him to resume work as the Vice Principal under respondent 3, the petitioner was aggrieved. In my view the fact that the petitioner joined service in 1953 and that he is now on the verge of retirement and that he was holding the post of the Principal for 2\ years could certainly be considered by the competent authority for consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Principal. 11. I have carefully examined Government notification dated 15ta November, 1988 by which the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis until further orders to the post of Principal, Government Higher Secondary School. Although it is indicated in this order that the appointment is purely ad-hoc arrangement and that the incumbent will not have any claim for seniority and regular appointment against the post, in my view the authority appointed the petitioner to the post of Principal because he was found fit and he was eligible to hold the post. Further when the petitioner was appointed to the post of Principal no one, including respondent 3, had taken any grievance. As stated above the appointment was valid until further orders. The post of Principal was held by the petitioner for more than 2 years. At the same time all the benefits of the Principal were enjoyed by the petitioner for more tha i 2 years. At the time of consideration of inter se senirity the petitioner was already holding the post of Principal, although on ad-hoc basis. At the same time it is not the case of the Government that the regular incumbent returned to the same post to take over from the petitioner. The impugned promotion of respondent 3 is a different issue. In 1988 there was no inter se seniority list. Also it is not the case of the Government that such inter se seniority was maintained consistently from early post. In fact it appears to me that for the first time inter se seniority respect of Headmaster Govt. High School/Vice Principal Govt. Higher Secondary School/Teachers Training Institute etc. was prepared only in 1989 January. 12. Also it is not the case of the Government that such inter se seniority was maintained consistently from early post. In fact it appears to me that for the first time inter se seniority respect of Headmaster Govt. High School/Vice Principal Govt. Higher Secondary School/Teachers Training Institute etc. was prepared only in 1989 January. 12. In the facts and circumstances of this case and after hearing learned counsel of both sides, I am of the view that equity is in favour of tae petitioner on two grounds, firstly because the petitioner has been serving since 1953 and he is on the verge of retirement and, secondly, that he was appointed to the post of Principal on ad-hoc basis and he hold the said post for 2£ years and that also without any complaint from any quarters including respondent 3. 13. In the result the petition is allowed. Impugned notification dated 25.10.89 and 2.11.89 are quashed. The petitioner shall be deemed to have been excluded from the inter se senility list dated 30.1.89 in view of the fact that he was already holding post of Principal at the time of consideration of inter se seniority. The petitioner shall be allowed to resume his duty as Principal or he should be given any other equivalent post. The period of his absence from duty shall be treated in accordance with Rules applicable in such a case. I make it clear that for any period during which he is not entitled to claim any monetary benefit in accordance with relevant financial rules, he shall be deemed not to be on duty. However there shall be no break of service and the petitioner shall be deemed to have been in service for the purpose of pensionary benefit. I pass no order as to costs.