V.K. Khanna, C.J.— This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 25.11.94 passed in Civil Rule No. 1252 of 1992 praying for a writ of Mandamus calling upon the respondents to show cause to withdraw, recall or otherwise forbear from giving effect to the preference in the panel prepared by the Governing Body of the Tinsukia Commerce College, Tinsukia dated 22.5.92 (contained in Annexure V to the Civil Rule and also to regularise the service of the petitioner-appellant as Principal of the Tinsukia Corrimerce College, Tinsukia. The learned Single Judge rejected the contentions raised by the petitioner in the Civil Rule under the impugned judgment which has been challenged in the present writ appeal. 2. At the admission stage, we have heard Mr. NM Lahiri, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. N. Chaudhury for the petitioner-appellant, Mr. BC Das, Addl Senior Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents and Mr. NN Saikia, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. J. Chutia appearing for the contesting respondent No.4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the present appeal is being finally disposed of at the admission stage. 3. The brief facts for the purpose of adjudicating the controversy in the present appeal are that admittedly the petitioner-appellant joined the Tinsukia Commerce College in the year 1973 and that the aforesaid Commerce College is one of the Aided Colleges by the State of Assam, to which, according to all the parties, the Assam Aided College Employees Rules, 1960 and the Assam Education Department Selection Rules, 1981 are applicable. In pursuance of the Assam Aided Colleges Employees Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the 1960 Rules) and the Assam Education Department Selection Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as the 1981 Rules) admittedly in the year 1986 under Rule 6 of the 1981 Rules, a selection list as contemplated under the aforesaid Rules was prepared, published and circulated to all the Aided Colleges under Rule 10 (2) and the validity of the aforesaid list was till the next list was published. Admittedly, the next list was prepared in the year 1989 and the name of the petitioner-appellant did not find place in the aforesaid list while the name of the contesting respondent No.4 featured at SI. No.26. Admittedly, the next list was prepared in the year 1989 and the name of the petitioner-appellant did not find place in the aforesaid list while the name of the contesting respondent No.4 featured at SI. No.26. It may be noted that the list which has been prepared in the year 1989 under the 1981 Rules is not under challenge before us. 4. On 29.1.92 the President of the Governing Body of Commerce College, Tinsukia issued an advertisement in 'Dainik Janambhumi' inviting applications with biodata and testimonials from selected Principals. In the said advertisement it was specifically mentioned than an M.Com or and MA (in English) would be preferred. Besides other the petitioner-appellant and respondent No. 4 applied for the aforesaid post in response to the aforesaid advertisement The Governing Body thereafter prepared a peneal of 3 (three) candidates wherein the name of the respondent No. 4 appears at SI. No. 1 while the name of the .petitioner-appellant at SI. No. 3. It is in pursuance of the aforesaid selection made by the Governing Body that the respondent No.4 has been appointed as the Principal of the Tinsukia Commerce College. Hence the petitioner-appellant approached this Court with Civil Rule No. 1252 of 1992 on the grounds mentioned therein and an interim stay order was obtained from the Division Bench of this Court on 1.7.92. 5. Mr. Lahiri, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has urged that in case of a College in Commerce, the services of a Principal were regularised and in accordance with the spirit of the letter of the Director of Public Instruction contained in Annexure V to the memo of appeal, the select list prepared in the year 1989 was not operative and thus the petitioner-appellant was entitled to be regularised on the post of the Principal. It has also been urged that the College in question being a Commerce College, the petitioner-appellant was the only candidates, who was qualified for being appointed as the Principal of the Commerce College as he had the graduate degree in Commerce while the contesting respondent had no degree in Commerce. 6. The first question arises for our determinations is as to in what manner regular selection to the post of a Principal has to be made in Aided Colleges. Counsel for both the parties have no disputes that 1960 and 1981 Rules will have application. 6. The first question arises for our determinations is as to in what manner regular selection to the post of a Principal has to be made in Aided Colleges. Counsel for both the parties have no disputes that 1960 and 1981 Rules will have application. We are also of the view that the entire 1981 Rules will have application in the matter and the 1960 Rules will have application only to the extent that they are not inconsistent to the 1981 Rules, The provisions of 1960 Rules set out the qualifications for being appointed as Principal of a college and that Rule 5 of the 1960 Rules sets out the academic and other qualification as under: "5. Academic and other qualification- (i) Principals - A candidate shall have at least ten years experience as teacher in a college or University or as and Educational Administrator. In special cases of outstanding Scholarship and administrative ability the length of experience may be relaxed upto five years." It is pertinent to note that for the post of Principal no such qualification has been laid down that he should be a graduate in a particular subject as even an Educational Administrator may also be considered for appointment as a Principal. 7. This has not been disputed that under the 1981 Rules a list has been prepared in the year 1989 and after the aforesaid list, no other list has been prepared under the 1981 Rules and the 1989 List has not been exhausted up till now as admittedly the name of respondent No .4 featured in 1989 List and he has not been appointed as a Principal. 8. After carefully considering the argument raised by Mr. Lahiri, we are of the opinion mat for appointment of a Principal in an Aided College under 1981 Rules, the selection made by the Governing Body have to be limited under Rule 10 of the aforesaid Rules. The Governing Body may invite applications from the candidates whose names appear in the select list in order to know as to who are willing to join the concerned college as Principal. The Governing Body may invite applications from the candidates whose names appear in the select list in order to know as to who are willing to join the concerned college as Principal. However, once consent is taken of the candidates appearing in the select list, we are of the opinion that the selection has to be made in accordance with the merit of the candidate in the select list and the Governing Body will thereafter send by means of a resolution the name of that person for being approved to the Director of Public Instruction before making any appointment. The Director of Public Instruction has also to proceed before granting approval on the same guideline which has been indicated above and it is only thereafter it has to grant the approval. The appointment has to be made out of the select list as per provisions of Rule 11 of the 1981 Rules. If any other procedure is followed, in our opinion, it will be absolutely arbitrary and in contravention of the 1960 and 1981 Rules. 9. From .the materials which has been placed before us it is not clear as to whether any such procedure has been followed. On the other hand, Mr. Lahiri points out that the services of one of the Principals of a College, namely, Kamrup College have been regularised by the State Government even though his name did not find place in the select list. We fail to understand as to how any Government instruction/order can override the provisions of 1960 and 1981 Rules. Neither of the parties has been able to show us that there is any rule for regularisation of the services of Principals who may be working in colleges after these colleges came into existence out of the 1960 and 1981 Rules. In our opinion, therefore, the question of regularasiation of the petitioner-appellant as Principal cannot arise and no relief to him can be granted on the basis that he has been working for sometime as Principal in the college. 10. In our opinion, therefore, the question of regularasiation of the petitioner-appellant as Principal cannot arise and no relief to him can be granted on the basis that he has been working for sometime as Principal in the college. 10. As from the material which have been filed in the Civil Rule and the present appeal it is not clear as to whether in the case of respondent No.4 the Principals as have been laid down in 1960 and 1981 Rules have been followed, we are of the opinion that the appointment of respondent No.4 will be made only after the Director of Public Instruction scrutinises the matter again in the light of the observation in this judgment and in accordance with the 1960 and 1981 Rules. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the list prepared in 1989 is correct, inasmuch as, Rule 10 (2) of 1981 Rules makes it specifically clear that the select list published will be valid till the next list is published. 11. The Registry of this Court will send a copy of this order to the Director of public Instruction within a period of one week from today, by registered A/D who shall after scrutinising the entire matter take a decision by a specking order within a period of two weeks from receipt of the copy of our order. It is in accordance with the decision given by the Director of Public Instruction that the Governing Body will make the appointment on the post of Principal in the Commerce College, Tinsukia. 12. The judgment given by the learned Single Judge stands modified to the extent indicated above in this judgment. In view of the observations made above, the appeal stands disposed of finally. Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.