ORDER : G.K. Ray, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. It appears that the appellant's grievance is confined to the guideline No. 3 in the impugned judgment of the High Court in the said guideline, it has been indicated that is a teacher was appointed to primary section and continued to teach in that section until 1990-91, such teacher shall remain in the primary section. Any teacher who had been teaching in primary section and transferred to pre-primary section after 14th November, 1986 shall be entitled to be brought back to primary section and the seniority will be reckoned from the date of original appointment. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that unfortunately the said guideline has failed to notice the cases of teachers like the appellant who was appointed it in the primary section but was transferred to the pre-primary section before 14-11-1986. such teachers like the appellant, are not entitled to be brought back to the primary section and their seniority is also not required to be reckoned from the date of the original appointment in the primary section according to said guideline No. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn out attention to the order dated 30-12-1994 passed by the Government of Goa, Directorate of Education as contained in Annexure-C of the S.L.P. paper books. It appears that the appellant was posted in pre-primary section much before the crucial date i.e. 4-11-1986. Accordingly, in terms of the High Court guideline No. 3 the Government has decided that the appellant is not entitled to be brought back to the primary section and it appears that the appellant has now become junior to eight of the teachers who were appointed much after the appellant because of the said guideline at serial No. 3. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the State of Goa has submitted that the appellant should have made representation to the three-member committee constituted in terms of the direction of the High Court so that the grievance of the appellant could have been considered by such committees. In our view, such representation by the appellant could not have been entertained by the said committee because such committee was bound by the guidelines indicated in the judgment of the High Court. Therefore, the appellant is justified in ventilating his grievance by filing this S.L.P. before us. In our view, such representation by the appellant could not have been entertained by the said committee because such committee was bound by the guidelines indicated in the judgment of the High Court. Therefore, the appellant is justified in ventilating his grievance by filing this S.L.P. before us. It appears to us that guideline No. 3 requires to be modified so that the teachers similarly circumstanced like the appellant do not suffer any unmerited hardship for no fault on their part. We, therefore, direct for modification of guideline No. 3 in the impugned judgment by indicating that any teacher appointed to primary section, but transferred to the pre-primary section irrespectively of the date of transfer to pre-primary section will be entitled to be brought back to the primary section like other teachers transferred after 14-11-1986 and seniority of such teacher will be reckoned from the date of his/her original appointment. With the aforesaid modification, of guideline No. 3, this appeal is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. By way of abundant caution, we make it clear that we were not called upon to consider the other parts of the judgment and hence no opinion has been expressed in respect of remaining portion of the judgment of the High Court. Appeal disposed of accordingly.