Amitava Roy, J.:- Grieved by the installation of the respondent No. 5 as the in-charge Headmaster of the Gossaidubi M.E. School, Goalpara, (hereafter referred to as the school) and the perceived denial of his preferential claim to the said office, the petitioner seeks judicial intervention for redress, hi terms of the impugned order dated 15.9.2006, the said respondent admittedly function as the in-charge Headmaster of the aforementioned school till date. 2. I Have heard Mr. Mahmud, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Munir, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department for the official respondents. Also heard Mr. M.H. Rajborbhuiya, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5. 3. The petitioner's case is that after passing Assam Madrassa Intermediate and Final Examination, he was appointed as Assistant Classical Arabic Teacher of the said school on 1.3.1974. The institution received grants in aid in the year 1994 and was provincialised in the next year. The particulars of the petitioner's academical qualifications in the writ petition are extracted herein below in tabular form for ready reference. Name of examination Year of passing Assam Madrassa Examination 1972 Assam Madrassa Final Examination 1974 Assam Madrassa Title Examination 1978 H.S.L.C. 1979 4. The petitioner who claims to be serving the school in the above capacity as on date has asserted that the Assam Madrassa Inter­mediate, Assam Madrassa Final and the Assam Madrassa Title Examinations are equivalent to Higher Secondary, B.A. and M. A. examinations respectively in the gen­eral discipline. According to him, he is pres­ently the senior most qualified Assistant Teacher of the school besides being one of the founder teachers thereof. For short peri­ods in the past during the absence of the regu­lar headmaster of the institution he had been handed over charge of the said office in rec­ognition of his seniority and competence. As the regular incumbent in the aforementioned office Shri Mohidur Rahman was scheduled to retire on 30.9.2006, the petitioner as well as the Managing Committee of the School submitted representations on 17.9.2006 be­fore the District Elementary Education Officer, Goalpara, so as to approve his assumption of charge of the post of headmaster on demission of office by the regular incumbent. The representations on one hand remained unattended and by the impugned decision, the outgoing headmaster of the school on his re­tirement was asked to handover charge of the office to the respondent No. 5. 5. The representations on one hand remained unattended and by the impugned decision, the outgoing headmaster of the school on his re­tirement was asked to handover charge of the office to the respondent No. 5. 5. The petitioner has complained that for the non-cooperation of the respondent No. 3,4 and 5, he could not obtain a copy of the order inspite of his best efforts. He has main­tained that the respondent No. 5 had been appointed as a Graduate Assistant Teacher in the school in the year 1980 and is, there­fore, junior to him by six years. The impugned arrangement, he insists is at the instance of the respondent No. 4 who is the Head Assis­tant of the office of the respondent No. 3 and is also a relation of the respondent No. 5. 6. The official respondents have not filed their counter. The respondent No. 5 in his affidavit has asserted that the petitioner being a Classical Teacher (Arabic) cannot be equated with him who is a Graduate Science Teacher and that the Classical Teachers who comprised a separate cadre were encadred with that of the Graduate Assistant Teachers only in the year 1986 vide office memoran­dum dated 30.8.1986 of the Education De­partment of the State. According to the an­swering respondent the petitioner's claim of seniority from the date of appointment is mis­conceived and, therefore, the temporary ar­rangement of in-charge headmastership is unassailable. 7. The respondent No. 6, the Managing Committee of the School, however, has af­firmed that the petitioner who was appointed as Assistant Classical (Arabic) Teacher is the senior most teacher of the institution and on the retirement of the regular headmaster, he ought to have been awarded the charge of the said office. The respondent No. 6 sub­stantially endorsed the contentions of the pe­titioner. 8. Mr. Mahmud has argued that the peti­tioner being eligible in all respects to hold the post of the headmaster of the school, he, pending regular appointment thereto, in view of his school seniority ought to have been placed in charge of the said office. The learned Counsel contended that on being allowed to function as the headmaster of the school on earlier occasions, for brief periods though, the petitioner has acquired sufficient administra­tive experience and, therefore, the induction of the respondent No. 5 by ignoring his pref­erential claim is illegal, arbitrary and unrea­sonable. The learned Counsel contended that on being allowed to function as the headmaster of the school on earlier occasions, for brief periods though, the petitioner has acquired sufficient administra­tive experience and, therefore, the induction of the respondent No. 5 by ignoring his pref­erential claim is illegal, arbitrary and unrea­sonable. He reiterated the allegation of malafide against the respondent No. 3. Ac­cording to him, seniority in the cadre of As­sistant Teachers qua the office memorandum dated 30.8.1986 is inconsequential, the length of service being decisive to determine the entitlement for incharge headmastership. He condemned the action to be discriminatory as well pointing out to the instances of Clas­sical Teachers on the basis of the school se­niority being allowed to be in-charge of the office of the headmaster of their institutions. In support of his assertions, Mr. Mahmud has placed, reliance on the decisions of this Court in Shri Benu Gohain Vs. North Eastern Power Corporation Limited & Ors., (1988) 2 GLR NOC 23, Dadhi Kalita Vs. State of Assam & Ors., 1999 (2) GLT417, Sadou Asom Madhyamic Snatak Bhasha Shikhak Santha & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., 2004 (3) GLT627, Sujit Paul Vs. State of Assam & Ors., 2007 (2) GLT329. 9. The learned Standing Counsel, Educa­tion Department on the basis of the written instructions received submitted that the peti­tioner is academically not qualified to be the headmaster of the school and that his name also does not figure in the select list drawn up on the basis of the selection conducted by the District Level Committee, Goalpara for promotions to the said post in various schools in the different blocks of the said district. The learned Standing Counsel though conceded that a Classical Teacher is eligible to be con­sidered for promotion to the above office if possessed of the requisite qualification, the petitioner being deficient in this regard, he in law cannot stake a claim to hold the charge of the post of headmaster even on in charge basis. He further pointed out that the senior­ity of Classical Teachers is computable for the purpose of such promotion w.e.f. 3.8.1990 in terms of Rule 24(2)(ii) of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Rule 1973, (hereafter referred to as the Rules) and on that count as well the petitioner's claim of seniority over the respondent No. 5 is un­tenable. He further pointed out that the senior­ity of Classical Teachers is computable for the purpose of such promotion w.e.f. 3.8.1990 in terms of Rule 24(2)(ii) of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Rule 1973, (hereafter referred to as the Rules) and on that count as well the petitioner's claim of seniority over the respondent No. 5 is un­tenable. He submitted that though the above provision has been adjudged to be ultravires by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Sadou Asom Madhyamic Snatak Bhasha Shikshak Santha & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors. (supra), the above determination has been kept in abeyance in WA128/05, Azizur Rahman & Ors. Vs. Sadou Assam Madhyamik Snatak Bhasha Shikshak Santha & Ors. According to the learned Standing Counsel, therefore, the petitioner's challenge to the temporary arrangement of in-charge headmastership of the school is unsustainable and no interference by this Court is warranted. 10. Mr. Rajborbhuiya while endorsing the stand of the official respondents has submit­ted that in any view of the matter, the respon­dent No. 5 being in charge of the office of the headmaster of the school for nearly a year now, no interference is called for at the in­stance of the petitioner more particularly when as disclosed by the instructions furnished by the State authorities, he (respondent No. 5), has been selected by the District Level Com­mittee, Goalpara, for regular promotion to the said post. The learned Counsel pressed into service the decision of this Court in Mahabubur Rahman Choudhury Vs. State of Assam & Ors., 1998 (4) GLT 469 to re­inforce his plea. 11. The rival submissions have received my due consideration. Apparently the assail-ment is essentially of the temporary arrange­ment whereunder the respondent No. 5 has been put in charge of the office of the head­master of the above named school. The tussle for the post at this transitory stage pending regular appointment thereto on promotion is founded on completing claims of seniority. In absence of a counter of the State respondents the written instructions assume considerable significance. As the same were produced in course of the hearing this Court directed a copy thereof to be furnished to the learned Counsels for the parties. Whereas Mr. Rajborbhuiya has relied thereon to buttress his arguments, Mr. In absence of a counter of the State respondents the written instructions assume considerable significance. As the same were produced in course of the hearing this Court directed a copy thereof to be furnished to the learned Counsels for the parties. Whereas Mr. Rajborbhuiya has relied thereon to buttress his arguments, Mr. Mahmud while not ques­tioning the authenticity of the documents or the contents thereof dismissed those to be inconsequential, the issue in the instant pro­ceeding being of in charge headmastership and not regular promotion thereto. 12. Noticeably though a veiled allegation of malafide against the District Elementary Education Officer, Goalpara, has been made in the petition, the officer concerned has not been impleaded as a respondent. Even oth­erwise the pleaded facts are vague and inde­terminate to sustain such a plea. 13. In his communication bearing No. DEA-43/Pt/0046657 dated 6.6.2007 ad­dressed to the Director, Elementary Educa­tion, Assam, the District Elementary Educa­tion Officer, Goalpara, has recorded that the petitioner is not academically qualified to be the headmaster of the school and accordingly the respondent No. 5 who is a Science Graduate was handed over the charge of the said office. It is also indicated that though on earlier occasions, senior teachers with HSLC qualification had been allowed to hold the current charge of the office of the headmas­ter but due to lack of administrative control, the schools had to suffer. The Director of El­ementary Education, Assam, in turn by his communication No. EHA. 208/2007/26 dated 21.7.2007 to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Edu­cation (Elementary) Department, Dispur, while reiterating the same forwarded a select list of the candidates for promotion to the post of headmaster for various schools in different blocks of the Goalpara District pointing out that the petitioner's name did not figure therein. The list is dated 28.6.2007 and it appears there from that the respondent No. 5 had been selected for regular promotion to the post of headmaster of the Gossaidubi M.E. School. Prima facie, therefore, the District Level Com­mittee, Goalpara, on its assessment in terms of the criteria laid down in this regard has se­lected the respondent No. 5 for the post of headmaster of the school. 14. Prima facie, therefore, the District Level Com­mittee, Goalpara, on its assessment in terms of the criteria laid down in this regard has se­lected the respondent No. 5 for the post of headmaster of the school. 14. Incidentally in terms of the notification No. EPG 86/03 dated 30.8.2006 issued in exercise of powers under Section 27(1) of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation)Act, 1974 and Section 3(3) of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Act, 1977, the procedure for promotion to the post inter alia of head­master of a M.E. School had been laid down prescribing seniority cum efficiency to be the criteria therefor. This selection of Respondent No. 5 as on date is not under challenge. 15. This Court in Mahabubur Rahman Choudhury (supra), while responding to a challenge to an order allowing the private re­spondent therein to hold the charge of the headmaster of the school involved declined to interfere as the arrangement devised was temporary not warranting a conclusive deci­sion on inter se seniority and the eligibility of the parties for the post. 16. The proposition that in absence of any provision in the service Rule for fixation of seniority the same ought to be determined upon the length of service if continuous as propounded in Shri Benu Gohain (supra), is of no consequence in the face of Rule 24 (2) (ii) of the Rules. 17. In Dadhi Kalita (supra), the debate centered around the private respondent's claim of being selected as the headmaster of the school involved. This Court in the con­textual facts declined to accept a certificate to the said effect issued by the Secretary, Nalbari District Teachers Association and remitted the matter to the Director of Elemen­tary Education, Assam, with the observation that if the respondent was selected as claimed by him, he would be entitled to be the head­master of the said school if the selection was still valid but otherwise the petitioner would be allowed to function as such till the post was filled up on regular basis. This decision turns on its own facts and in my considered opinion does not advance the case of the pe­titioner. 18. Rule 24 (2) (ii) of the Rules having a bearing on the petitioner's claim of seniority deserves extraction. "24 (2)(ii)... "Seniority regarding Classical Teacher shall be counted as per Govt. This decision turns on its own facts and in my considered opinion does not advance the case of the pe­titioner. 18. Rule 24 (2) (ii) of the Rules having a bearing on the petitioner's claim of seniority deserves extraction. "24 (2)(ii)... "Seniority regarding Classical Teacher shall be counted as per Govt. Letter No. B(3) S. 244/99/42 dated 3.8.1990 in which it is stated that the Classical Teachers of Hindi, Sanskrit, Arabic, Persian, Assamese, Bodo etc. having a Degree qualification may be included in the cadre of Graduate teacher for giving ben­efit of promotion to the Higher post in the same line of general teachers i.e. from the date of is­sue of the aforesaid Govt. letter dated 3.8.1990". 19. It is apparent from the quoted provi­sion that the classical teachers like the peti­tioner having a degree qualification have been included in the cadre of graduate teachers for the purpose of promotion of higher posts w.e.f. 3.8.1990 and that their seniority would be reckoned from that date. Though a learned Single Judge of this Court in Sadou Madhyamik Sikshak Sanstha (supra) has struck down the said provision as unconsti­tutional, the issue remains subjudice as on date in WA 128/05, Azizur Rahman Vs. State of Assam & Ors. The Appellate Bench by or­der dated 18.2.2005 passed in Misc. Case 414/05 while admitting the appeal stayed the operation of the impugned judgment and or­der. Understandably the validity of the above legal provision has not been assailed in the instant proceeding. Arguments either im­peaching the same or urging non-applicabil­ity thereof to the petitioner have not been advanced either. The petitioner's claim of se­niority over the respondent No. 5 thus can­not be upheld in the above premise. 20. As noticed herein above, the written instructions reveal that the placement of the petitioner No. 5 as the in charge headmaster of the school is a conscious decision based on academic qualification and suitability. The aspect of administrative competence has also been addressed to. In the selection held by the District Level Committee, Goalpara, the respondent No. 5 has been recommended for regular promotion to the post of headmaster of the school. Even assuming that the peti­tioner is otherwise eligible to hold the said post, on a comparative assessment of suit­ability he seems to have been discarded. In the selection held by the District Level Committee, Goalpara, the respondent No. 5 has been recommended for regular promotion to the post of headmaster of the school. Even assuming that the peti­tioner is otherwise eligible to hold the said post, on a comparative assessment of suit­ability he seems to have been discarded. Neither the veracity of the written instructions so furnished has been questioned in the in­stant proceeding nor the legality of the selection referred to therein has been repudiated. Considering the transient nature of the ar­rangement preceding regular appointment on promotion to the post involved and the total­ity of the materials available, I do not feel persuaded to sustain the challenge thereto. The petition being without any merit is dis­missed. No costs.