In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the Annexure H order dated 24.8.92 and prayed for issuance of appropriate writ or direction. 2. The facts of the case may briefly be stated as follows : Petitioner joined as Lower Division Assistant in the erstwhile office of the Directorate of Public Instructions Assam on 22.10. 1960. He was promoted to the post of Upper Division Assistant in the same office on 9.2.71. The ers while Directorate of Public Instruct one was abolished in 1985 and two new Directorates, namely, Directorate of Secondary Education, Assam and Directorate of Higher Education, Assam were created with effect from 1.4.85. These two Directorates were given t e status of Heads of Department with independent powers and functions. Initially the staff cadre of' he erstwhile Directorate of Public Instructions was allowed to constitute a joint cadre with sub-cadre in the two new Directorates. Later on however, the Govern­ment in the interest of public service by Annexure A ordered 30.4.92 decided that the continuance of joint cadres of the staff of the two new Directorates could not be allowed for indefinite period. Therefore, the Governor of Assam was pleased to order for constitution of a single and independent cadre of their own existing staff superseding all previous orders and giving full and independent status to each Directorate with all staff of its own for all intent and purposes. In the said Annexure A order it was mentioned that all permanent or regular and officiating leave vacancies of the two Directorates including promotion could be made from their own existing staff only by their respective Heads of the Departments. 10 consequence of the creation of the two Directorates the petitioner was placed in the Directorate of Higher Education. In the said Directorate the petitioner was promoted to the rank of Superintendent and by Annexure B order dated 30.4.92 he was asked to look after the works of Registrar of the said Department due to retirement of the earlier incumbent Miss W. Lyngdoh. In pursuance of the Annexure B order the charge of Registrar of the said Directorate was taken over by the petitioner and since then he had been holding the charge of the said Registry. After taking over the charge, respondent. In pursuance of the Annexure B order the charge of Registrar of the said Directorate was taken over by the petitioner and since then he had been holding the charge of the said Registry. After taking over the charge, respondent. No. 4 issued Annexure D order dated 8.5.92 wherein it was, inter alia, stated that the petitioner being the seniormost Superintendent of the office of the Director of Higher Education, Assam, was allowed to take over charge of the post of Registrar in the said office. This arrangement was made in compliance with proviso to Rule 3 (2) of the Assam Directorate Establishment (Ministerial) Service Rules, 1973. Though the petitioner took over charge of Registrar after complying with all the requirements of law as aforesaid, suddenly the fourth respondent by Annexure E order dated 18.5.92 had withdrawn the earlier order dated 8.5.92. This was done without affording any reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Petitioner has further stated that the third respondent by Annexure F order dated 16 6.92 confirmed the Annexure B order stating, inter alia, that the same would come into force with immediate effect and that it had the approval of the Minister of Education, Assam. However, by Annexure G order the third respondent had withdrawn the Annex ire F order without giving any reason. Thereafter, by Annexure H order dated 24.8.92 the third respondent promoted the sixth respondent to the post of Registrar in the Directorate of Public Instructions (Higher Education) which the petitioner had been holding on the strength of Annexure A, and B and D orders which were issued in accordance with the provisions of Rule. Petitioner has further stated that the sixth respondent had been working as Superintendent in the Director­ate of Secondary Education which is a separate Directorate as per Annexure A order. This appointment of the sixth respondent was made by the third respondent without following the procedure prescribed by Rules and without giving any notice or information to the petitioner who was holding the charge of Registrar. Hence the present petition. 3. The sixth respondent has filed an affidavit-in opposition and a reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. In the affidavit-in-opposition the sixth respondent, inter alia, has stated that he was promoted to the post of Registrar in the office of the Director of Public Instructions, Assam . Hence the present petition. 3. The sixth respondent has filed an affidavit-in opposition and a reply affidavit has been filed by the petitioner. In the affidavit-in-opposition the sixth respondent, inter alia, has stated that he was promoted to the post of Registrar in the office of the Director of Public Instructions, Assam . He took charge on 25.8.92 as Registrar of the Director of Public Instructions, Assam on receipt of the order dated 24.8.92. However, this fact was not brought to the notice of this Court. His further submission is that the petitioner failed to exhaust the legal remedies available to him and, therefore, this Court may not entertain this writ petition in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution. According to him, if he was aggrieved he could approach the Administrative Tribunal. However, without doing so he has filed the present writ petition. He has denied that there was any creation of a new Directorate of Higher Education, Assam. Directorate of Public Instructions, Assam was bifurcated and splitted into two Directorates. The petitioner worked as Upper Division Assistant in the Directorate of Public Instructions. Prior to the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Superintendent he was an Upper Division Assistant in the Director of Secondary Education Assam and the sixth respondent was also an Upper Division Assistant in the same Directo­rate and as per the seniority list the sixth respondent was shown to be senior to the petitioner. On 1.2.88 the sixth respondent was promoted to the post of Superintendent of the Directorate of Secondary Education, Assam on the basis of overall seniority and the petitioner was promoted to the post of Superintendent after him that is on 30.6.88. Even as Superintendent the sixth respondent was senior to the petitioner by five month. He has further stated that some employees of the ministerial cadre had been taken to the Directo­rate of Higher Education, Assam and some remained with the Directorate of Secondary Education. 4. I have heard both sides. 5. Mr. AM Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by Annexure A order dated 30.4.92 the Government decided to consti­tute a single and independent cadre of their own existing staff. In Annexure A order it was clearly mentioned that the promotion of the staff of two Direct­orates could be made form their existing staff only by the respective heads of departments. In Annexure A order it was clearly mentioned that the promotion of the staff of two Direct­orates could be made form their existing staff only by the respective heads of departments. After creation of the two Directorates the petitioner was placed in the Directorate of Higher Education and by Annexure B order dated 30.4.92 the petitioner being the senior most Superintendent of the office of the Director of Higher Education was allowed to look after the work of the Registrar in the office of the Director of Higher Education in addition to his own duties due to retirement of the earlier incumbent and accordingly he took over the charge. Annexures B and D orders had been issued by the authority in strict compliance with the Rules. His further submission was that the sixth respondent had been working as Superintendent in the Directorate of Secon­dary Education which is a separate department altogether and, therefore, he could not be appointed in the Directorate of Higher Education. Learned counsel further submitted that by Annexure F order dated 16.6.92 the Gover­nment vacated the order issued by earlier letter dated 7.5.92 whereby the Annexure B order was kept in abeyance and brought into force Annexure B order dated 30.4.92. But without assigning any reason by Annexure G order dated 18.6.92 withdrew the earlier Annexure F order with immediate effect. Thereafter sixth respondent was appointed by Annexure H order vice Soati W. Lyngdoh retired. According to Mr. Mazumdar by Annexure B order the petitioner was allowed to look after the work of the Registrar and this was confirmed by Annexures C, D and F orders. By Annexure E order the appointment of the petitioner had been withdrawn without assigning any reason which was later on vacated by Annexure F order. Again by Annexure G order the Annexure F order was withdrawn and most illegally by Annexure H order the sixth respondent was promoted in his place. According to Mr. Mazumdar, Government changed the stand from time to time without any reason whatsoever. No opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned Annexures G and H orders are illegal, contrary to the relevant provisions of Rule and violative of principles of natural justice. 6. Dr. YK Phookan, learned counsel for the sixth respondent submitted that the petitioner before filing this writ petition filed a civil suit on the same subject matter. Therefore, the impugned Annexures G and H orders are illegal, contrary to the relevant provisions of Rule and violative of principles of natural justice. 6. Dr. YK Phookan, learned counsel for the sixth respondent submitted that the petitioner before filing this writ petition filed a civil suit on the same subject matter. However, it was not mentioned in the writ petition. This amo­unts to suppression of the material fact. In the writ petition the petitioner also suppressed the fact that the Munsiff, Guwahati passed on order restraining the respondents from giving effect to the order dated 7.5.92. According to him two proceedings in respect of the same subject matter cannot continue and accordingly the writ petition is not maintainable. The second ground of Dr. Phookan was that the prayer in the writ petition was incomplete and, there­fore, no effective order could be passed. He further submitted that there was no allegation of mala fide made in the petition. Besides, according to the learned counsel the petitioner was not entitled to hold the post of Registrar as per the provisions of Rule 7 of the Assam Directorate Establishment (Minist­erial) Service Rules, 1973. Moreover, the petitioner failed to show on what ground the appointment of the sixth respondent to the post of Registrar was challenged. 7. On the rival contentions of the parties it is to be considered whether the impugned Annexure H order is sustainable in law. The admitted fact is that the petitioner held the post of Superintendent in the office of the Director of Higher Education. He was allowed to look after the work of the Registrar by Annexure B order, he being the senior most Superintendent in the said Department. The order was again kept in abeyance by order dated 7.5.92. Later on the order dated 7.5.92 by which Annexure B order was kept in abeyance was vacated by Annexure F order. This order was again suddenly withdrawn by Annexure G order without assigning any reason. No opportunity was, however, given. The petitioner being asked to look after the work of the Registrar he has definitely a right to know for what reason the existing arrangement was discontinued. Besides, he being the senior most Superinten­dent of the office of the Director of Higher Education an opportunity ought to have been given to him to show cause against such withdrawal. The petitioner being asked to look after the work of the Registrar he has definitely a right to know for what reason the existing arrangement was discontinued. Besides, he being the senior most Superinten­dent of the office of the Director of Higher Education an opportunity ought to have been given to him to show cause against such withdrawal. However, by Annexure H order sixth respondent was appointed in his place. From this it appears that there had been a clear violation of the principles of natural justice. Admittedly the sixth respondent belongs to a different Directorate in view of Annexure A order. In my view, he cannot claim any right over the petitioner. Besides Rule of the Assam Directorate Establishment (Ministerial) Services Rules, 1973, a Registrar can be appointed by the appointing authority by promotion on the basis of seniority-cum-merit from amongst Superintendents of the service who have rendered service as such for a period of not less than two years on the first day of the year in which the selection is made. The Rule is very clear that seniority and merit amongst the Superintendents of the service are required to be considered. Annexure 4 order does not show that the appointing authority had considered this aspect of the matter. As mentioned in Annexure A, Directorate of Public Instructions was bifurcated and two independent Directorates were created and the Governor of Assam was pleased to order as follows: "...henceforth the joint-cadre of the staff of the Directorate of Higher Education and Directorate of Secondary Education should constitute a single and independent cadre of their own existing staff." From this it is abundantly clear that the Directorate of Higher Education and Directorate of Secondary Education are two separate and independent Directorates and, therefore, the promotion could be made to the post of Registrar under Rule 7 of the said Rules only from that particular Director­ate. Unfortunately this had not been done. The sixth respondent definitely being a member of a different Directorate, in my opinion, cannot claim any right to be appointed as Registrar in that Directorate. The Registrar is to be appointed after considering the respective seniority-cum-merit of the Superin­tendents of the service. This had also not been done. 8. In view of the above, I find that Annexure H order appointing the sixth respondent as Registrar is contrary to Annexure A and provisions of relevant Rules. The Registrar is to be appointed after considering the respective seniority-cum-merit of the Superin­tendents of the service. This had also not been done. 8. In view of the above, I find that Annexure H order appointing the sixth respondent as Registrar is contrary to Annexure A and provisions of relevant Rules. Annexure H contradicts Annexure A inasmuch as by Annexure H order appointment of Registrar was made in the office of "the Director of Public Instruction (Higher Education) Assam". On the other hand, Annexure A mentions about abolition of the erstwhile Directorate of Public Instructions. Therefore, I set aside the Annexure H order and direct the appointing authority to appoint a Registrar from amongst the Superintendent of the Department in accordance with the provisions of Rule 7 of the Rules. Before passing any order the parties shall be heard. However, while passing the order the appointing authority shall not be influenced by any of the observa­tions made above. The petition is disposed of.