JUDGMENT : G.B. Patnaik, J. - The petitioner who has been appointed as Assistant Teacher of an aided educational institution against the trained Matric post and is continuing as such since 1-7-1976, has approached this Court for declaration that he is senior to opp. party Nos. 5 and 6 and, therefore, would be entitled to be adjusted against the trained Graduate post It alleged that opp. party Nos. 5 and 6 after becoming Graduate were appointed as Asst. teachers against the sectional posts in the trained Intermediate scale with effect from 1-9-1977, roughly one year and two months after the petitioner's appointment against the trained Matric post. The petitioner acquired B. Ed. degree on 5-6-1982 and opp. party Nos. 5 and 6 acquired B. Ed. qualification on 5-3-1983. Therefore, taking the length of service and acquiring B. Ed. qualification prior to opp. party Nos. 5 and 6 into consideration, the petitioner must be deemed to be senior to the opp. party Nos. 5 and 6. The further case of the petitioner is that certain posts from trained Matric to trained Intermediate and trained Intermediate to trained Graduate were upgraded by the State Government, and it was directed by the Government that those posts should be filled up by promoting teacher of the same school in accordance with the seniority. The Inspector of Schools (opp. party 3) ignoring the seniority of the petitioner, called upon the Managing Committee to furnish necessary proposal/records for adjustment of the opp. party Nos. 5 and 6 against the two upgraded posts. The petitioner, therefore, has approached this Court. Neither the State nor any of its functionaries, though arrayed as opp. party Nos. 1 to 3, have filed any counter affidavit. The Management (opp. party 4) has also not filed any counter affidavit. But the opp. party No. 5 has filed the counter affidavit which has been adopted by opp. party No. 6 Opp. party No. 5 in the counter affidavit has averred that the petitioner was appointed as a teacher in an M. E. school whereas opp. party Nos. 5 and 6 were appointed against the trained Intermediate posts in the high school. party No. 5 has filed the counter affidavit which has been adopted by opp. party No. 6 Opp. party No. 5 in the counter affidavit has averred that the petitioner was appointed as a teacher in an M. E. school whereas opp. party Nos. 5 and 6 were appointed against the trained Intermediate posts in the high school. After both the schools were amalgamated on 20-12-1980, the opposite parties continued in higher posts, i. e. I. A. C. T. post whereas the petitioner continued in the trained Matric post and at no point of time the petitioner intimated, the managing committee about his passing of the B. Ed. Examination. It is on this score, even though vacancies were available in the trained Graduate posts the question of considering the petitioner for being absorbed against those posts did not arise after the posts were upgraded by the Government in aided schools and persons were identified to be adjusted against the posts, obviously basing on the fact that those who were continuing in the trained Intermediate posts, should be adjusted against trained Graduate posts, opp. party Nos. 5 and 6 have been adjusted. 2. It is the case of opp. party Nos. 5 and 6 that they have been recruited against trained intermediate posts on 1-9-1977 on which date the petitioner, was continuing in a lower scale, i. e., the trained Matric post since 1-7-1976 and as such they shall be deemed senior to the petitioner and at any rate the petitioner having of taken any steps to intimate the managing committee to the effect that he has acquired the B. Ed. qualification, rightly he has not been adjusted against trained Graduate post. 3. In view of the rival submissions, the question that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is senior to opp. party Nos. 5 and 6 and, if so then has there been illegality in adjusting the opp. party Nos. 5 and 6 against the trained Graduate posts. Even if the assertions made in the counter affidavit of opp. party No. 5 are correct, but admittedly the two schools having been amalgamated on 20-12-1980 it was the foremost duty of the managing committee to determine the inter se seniority of employees of both the schools. Admittedly, the petitioner joined the institution on 1-7-1976 and against the trained Matric post and is continuing since then. The opp. party Nos. party No. 5 are correct, but admittedly the two schools having been amalgamated on 20-12-1980 it was the foremost duty of the managing committee to determine the inter se seniority of employees of both the schools. Admittedly, the petitioner joined the institution on 1-7-1976 and against the trained Matric post and is continuing since then. The opp. party Nos. 5 and 6 joined the institution one year and two months later than the petitioner and are continuing as such. The petitioner acquired the qualification of B. Ed. earlier than the opp. party, Nos. 5 and 6. Therefore either taking into account the total length of service or the earlier date of acquisition of higher qualification, the petitioner has to be held senior to opp. party Nos. 5 and 6. In this view of the matter, even if the petitioner might not have intimated the fact of his acquiring, E. Ed. qualification to the managing committee, his right to be considered for adjustment against the said post is not ipso facto taken away, particularly, when the State Government upgraded and intimated that the adjustment should be made by promoting employees of the institution in accordance with their seniority, in our considered opinion while considering the case of the opp. party Nos. 5 and 6 for adjustment against the trained Graduate post, the authorities have committed error in ignoring the petitioner's seniority. Further, if the contention of Mr. Mohanty, the learned counsel appearing for the opp. party No. 5 is correct, and in fact, there were existing vacancies in the trained Graduate posts after the petitioner acquired the trained Graduate qualification on 5-4-1992, there was no justification on the part of the managing committee in not considering the petitioner's case and adjusting him against these vacant posts in which event the present dispute would not have arisen. Be that as it may, in view of our conclusion that the petitioner is senior to opp. party Nos. 5 and 6, the question of re-adjustment of the employees against the trained Graduate posts may now be considered. According to Mr. Mohanty as well as Mr. Aziz, the learned counsel appearing for opp. party Nos. 5 and 6 respectively, that in the school there still exist vacancies in trained Graduate posts and without disturbing the opp. party Nos. 5 and 6, the petitioner can also be adjusted against a trained Graduate post. According to Mr. Mohanty as well as Mr. Aziz, the learned counsel appearing for opp. party Nos. 5 and 6 respectively, that in the school there still exist vacancies in trained Graduate posts and without disturbing the opp. party Nos. 5 and 6, the petitioner can also be adjusted against a trained Graduate post. If that is possible and, in fact, if there exist vacancies in the trained Graduate post, the appropriate authority may adjust the petitioner against one of such trained Graduate posts without disturbing the two opp. party Nos. 5 and 6. But, if that is not possible necessary adjustment may be made on the basis of oar conclusion that the petitioner is senior to opp. party Nos. 5 and 6 and appropriate orders may be passed within two months from the date of receipt of this order. 4. The writ application is disposed of with the above observation and directions. P.C. Naik, J. I agree.