This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner claiming her seniority under the Service Rules applicable in the petitioner's case. 2. The petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in English by the Govern­ment of Assam in the Silchar Polytechnic in December, 1967. Serving in that capacity, petitioner was transferred to different polytechnics of Assam including Gauhati Girls Polytechnic as Lecturer in English in the year 1978. In the year 1969 the petitioner's service was regularised and she was confirmed in that post with effect from 22.11.76. As a Lecturer in English in polytechnic the petitioner was holding non-technical post in the Department of Technical Education, but the post was encadred in Assam Education Service Class II which included the members of the services working in various Degree Colleges, both Science and Arts. In 1980 the service of the petitioner was placed at the disposal of the Education (A) Department and she was appoi­nted as Lecturer in English at the Assam Sanskrit College at Gauhati and since then she has been serving in that capacity, although initially the transfer of the petitioner to Education (A) Department was extended from time to time. 3. Considering her seniority in service petitioner held the post of Principal of Assam Sanskrit College for more than 3 years from 1982 to 1985. The vacancy was created for the permanent absence of the Principal of the College. The Government of Assam in the Education Department prepared a seniority list in the cadre of Lecturers of Assam Sanskrit College under the Assam Education Service by order No. EMI-125/81/7 dated 22.9.81 wherein the name of the petitioner was shown at the bottom mentioning the date of transfer in 1S80 as the date of appointment. On the basis of this wrong mentioning of the date of appointment as 1980 instead of 1967 the charge of the Principalship of the College was taken away from the petitioner in 1985 though she was the seniormost Lecturer working in the college, showing the names of the persons appointed after her, as senior to her. In the resultant vacancy the State Government allowed the junior Lecturer to hold the charge of Principal ignoring the legitimate claim of the petitioner. In the resultant vacancy the State Government allowed the junior Lecturer to hold the charge of Principal ignoring the legitimate claim of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed appeal before the Assam Administrative Tribunal being Appeal Case No. 37ATA/86 wherein she claimed fixation of inter-se seniority in the Assam Education Service and the Tribunal while disposing the appeal by order dated 29.11.86 held that the posting in Sanskrit College does not sever her link from the post or service in which she was confirmed with effect from 22.4.76. Further, it was held that the post of Lecturer in the Sanskrit College are not part of any service carried a pay scale lower than that of English Lecturer in the Polytechnics and that the petitioner shall continue to be a member of the relevant cadre with due seniority in accordance with law and her status in the Sanskrit College will be as deputationist from her parent service and direction was given by the Tribunal to delete the name of the petitioner from the gradation list relating to Sanskrit College. After the direction passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner made several representations before the State Govern­ment to take her back in the Assam Education Service and to accommodate her in any one of the Class I posts of the cadre. As no effective action has been taken by the Government, the petitioner has to file another appeal before the Tribunal being Appeal Case Mo. 78 of 1988 wherein the Tribunal granted further two months time to the State Government to give effect of the order and also to dispose of the representation pending before the Govern­ment and the DPI was directed to report compliance of the order by 3.10.88. Even after that no effective action was taken and petitioner had to file representation after representation without any result. Ultimately, the petitioner approached this Court for a direction to the State Government to comply with the decision of the Administrative Tribunal claiming her promotion to the post of Professor. 4. None appears for the State of Assam and no affidavit has been filed to counter the allegation and relief claimed in the writ petition. 5. In view of the Apex Court's decision in AIR 1993 SC 2592 (Naseem Banu vs. State of UP) and 1992 (Vol. 4. None appears for the State of Assam and no affidavit has been filed to counter the allegation and relief claimed in the writ petition. 5. In view of the Apex Court's decision in AIR 1993 SC 2592 (Naseem Banu vs. State of UP) and 1992 (Vol. II) All India Services Law Journal 159 (Prabhu Ram, Retired Principal ITI Rohtak vs. State of Haryana Nagar) I hold that as the averment made in the writ petition not controverted by the respondent, averment has been admitted by the respondent. The petitioner being a member of the Assam Education Service is entitled to be appointed in any of the College or in Polytechnics in Assam and entitle to the promotion to the post of Professor as submitted by Mr. Bujarbaruah, learned counsel for the petitioner in the amalgamated education service. The petitioner is the seniormost Lecturer of Humanities group, belonging to the Polytechnics and Engineering Colleges in Assam and is entitled to the post of Professor. The person immediately above the petitioner was promoted to the post of Professor was made on 31.7.79 and their promotion have been regularised with effect from 25.11.81. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that to knowledge and information of the petitioner there are several vacancies in the Engineering Colleges, Polytechnics at Gauhati and also in Cotton College, Gauhati in which the petitioner can easily be accommodated in any such post. 6. As it appears that the petitioner suffered discrimination as the concer­ned authority showed her date of appointment in 1980 in the Sanskrit College though the petitioner was appointed in 1967 and her post was regularised and confirmed many years back. In that view of the matter the transfer of the petitioner to the Sanskrit College is only on deputation in 1980 which can not be held her date of appointment. 7. Apparently, the petitioner was discriminated on the wrong calculation of inter-se-seniority showing her appointment in 1980. In that view of the matter, the petitioner status cannot be changed as seniormost officer in the cadre and she has right to serve and work in the cadre post in the Depart­ment. It is also held that keeping the petitioner in non cadre post to which she was transferred in 1980 on purely temporary basis in the nature of deputation is illegal and therefore she is entitled to the relief she claimed. It is also held that keeping the petitioner in non cadre post to which she was transferred in 1980 on purely temporary basis in the nature of deputation is illegal and therefore she is entitled to the relief she claimed. 8. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to re-fix the seniority of the petitioner with retrospective effect in the Assam Education Service on the basis of the judgment and direction given by the Administrative Tribunal in Case No. 37 ATA/86 dated 29.11.86 and Case No. 77 ATA/88 dated 2.7.88 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this judgment. 9. With the above observation and direction the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay the costs of Rs. 500/- to the petitioner.