Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 352 (GAU)

Abdul Rahman v. State of Assam

2009-05-26

AMITAVA ROY

body2009
JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. The legal tussle engaging the writ petitioners pertains to their rival claims for the office of the Headmaster of the Mandakata High School ('the School') and their inter se seniority therefore. The proceedings are the manifestations of their challenges and/or grievances relating to the succeeding phases. This adjudication on the basis of an analogous hearing of these petitions would, thus, answer the lingering issue. 2. I have heard Mr. M. Nath, learned Counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2081/2008, Mr. M.R. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department for the official respondents and Mr. B.K. Das, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 5. The parties above named being common in the other writ petitions are accordingly represented by their above named counsels. 3. The pleaded version of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 2081/2008, Md. Abdul Rahman is that he presently is holding the post of the Headmaster of the School on in-charge basis. According to him, he was initially appointed as a Science Graduate Teacher under Half a Million Job Programme by a resolution of the Managing Committee of the then Mandakata M.E. School w.e.f. 3.3.1975. His appointment was thereafter approved by the Deputy Inspector of Schools and the said school was provincialised w.e.f. 1.10.1977 whereupon his pay scale was reduced from the graduate scale of pay to the intermediate pay scale from that date. The Mandakata M.E. School was eventually amalgamated with the High School w.e.f. 26.9.1980. The petitioner continued to work in the School and his graduate scale of pay was restored w.e.f. 1.11.1980. He has maintained that on the retirement of the earlier Headmaster of the School, he was handed over the charge of the said office on 1.3.2007 and has since then been discharging the duties relatable thereto. 4. The petitioner has averred that some similarly situated graduate teachers appointed under the "Half a Million Job Programme" in the years 1974 and 1975 in the District of Kamrup not having being paid their graduate scale of pay from 1.10.1977 to 31.12.1980 had instituted C.R. No. 2134/1990, C.R. No. 2137/1990 and C.R. No. 2318/1990 in this Court praying for release of their seniority in service. These writ petitions were disposed of with a direction to the respondents to accord the graduate scale of pay to the writ petitioners therein w.e.f. 1.10.1997 with the observation that their relegation to the intermediate scale of pay would not effect their seniority. The petitioner has asserted that thereafter the petitioners in the aforementioned writ proceedings had been paid their arrear pay computed on the graduate scale for the aforementioned period and consequent upon their seniority so adjudged some of them are continuing as regular Headmasters of their respective schools. As in spite thereof, he was denied the arrear salary in the graduate scale of pay and seniority in service for the said period, he instituted C.R. No. 1342/2007 which was disposed of on 11.4.2007 with a direction to the State respondents to submit his case to the Committee constituted by the Government vide notification dated 22.8.2006 for scrutiny and a proper decision within a period of six months. Apart from some initial steps in this regard, the official respondents showed no inclination to pursue the process as ordered by this Court and instead contemplated to confer the charge of the office of the Headmaster to a junior teacher thereof. The petitioner, thus, approached this Court again with WP(C) No. 4154/2007 praying for a direction to them to decide the issue bearing on his arrear salary and seniority in service at par with the equally placed teachers who had been extended the necessary benefits in terms of the determination of this Court in C.R. No. 2137/1990 and others. This Court while issuing notice by order dated 17.1.2007 directed maintenance of the status quo with regard to the office of the Headmaster of the School. 5. Official communications were thereafter exchanged between the different authorities of the department and finally an affidavit along with miscellaneous application registered as Misc. Case No. 4464/2007 were filed by the State respondents in WP(C) No. 4154/2007 admitting inter alia the constitution of a sub-committee by the Government with the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, as its Chairman for examination of cases relating to the claim of arrear salary and report thereby for the submission thereof before the Expert Committee for necessary decision. The minutes of the proceedings of the subcommittee dated 12.12.2007 was also annexed thereto embodying its view against the petitioner's entitlements. The minutes of the proceedings of the subcommittee dated 12.12.2007 was also annexed thereto embodying its view against the petitioner's entitlements. Being aggrieved, he instituted WP(C) No. 155/2008 in which this Court also directed the status quo as ordered in WP(C) No. 4154/2007 vis-a-vis the office of the Headmaster of the School be maintained. It was thereafter that by the impugned order dated 18.1.2008, the petitioner's claim for arrear salary for the period 1.10.1977 to 31.10.1980 was rejected. By order dated 24.3.2008 also impugned herein, his claim for seniority over respondent No. 5, Shri Jadav Das has been declined. The petitioner, however, has admitted that prior thereto, he and the respondent No. 5 were afforded an opportunity of submitting all relevant documents as well as hearing which he had availed. 6. The State respondents have averred in their counter that the Government in the year 1974 had created 1000 posts under the scheme titled "Half a Million Job Programme" for promotion of Science Education in provincialised/government and other secondary and middle schools and for deployment of Science Graduates having Mathematics at the degree level. Such teachers in the High/Higher and Middle English Schools were recruited on a fixed pay of Rs. 150 per month, which was later enhanced to Rs. 345. Such stipends/pay were released as annual grants to the schools. In contra distinction, the graduate teachers of provincialised/government secondary schools from the day of receipt of deficit system of grants in aid used to be paid graduate scale of pay w.e.f. 1.1.1993 which under went revisions with progress of time. Though subsequently, the teachers under the aforementioned scheme serving in High/Higher Secondary Schools were extended the graduate scale of pay w.e.f. 1.1.1975 those serving in middle schools under the Directorate of Elementary Education were not accorded the same benefit. The Headmaster of such schools, however, were entitled to the graduate scale of pay. Eventually the science graduate teachers appointed under the scheme in the middle schools were sanctioned graduate scale of pay w.e.f. 16.11.1991. According to the answering respondents vide ESS.78/72/468 dated 10.1.1978, the seniority of such teachers working in the High/Higher Secondary Schools who enjoyed the benefit of the graduate scale of pay was decided to be reckoned w.e.f. 1.3.1978. Eventually the science graduate teachers appointed under the scheme in the middle schools were sanctioned graduate scale of pay w.e.f. 16.11.1991. According to the answering respondents vide ESS.78/72/468 dated 10.1.1978, the seniority of such teachers working in the High/Higher Secondary Schools who enjoyed the benefit of the graduate scale of pay was decided to be reckoned w.e.f. 1.3.1978. The State respondents pleaded that as the petitioner Abdul Rahman on his appointment as a Science Graduate Teacher in Mandakata M.E. School w.e.f. 3.3.1975, therefore, received a fixed pay of Rs. 345 per month, his services for the purpose of seniority in the amalgamated school was, thus, measurable from the date of receipt of graduate scale of pay following such amalgamation, i.e., 1.11.1980. 7. The State respondents have affirmed that the sub-committee constituted by the Government under the Chairmanship of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, for examination of the cases for claim for salary after hearing the petitioner on 17.5.2007 and 2.12.2007 submitted its report on 12.12.2007 for being placed before the Expert Committee which scrutinized the same on 12.1.2008 and recorded the following: (i) The Managing Committee of the Mandakata M.E. School appointed the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher under Half a Million Job Programme on 24.3.1975 but no scale of pay was mentioned in the appointment order of the petitioner. (ii) The petitioner has received his salary @ Rs. 345 per month w.e.f. 3.3.1975 to 30.9.1977 as per his own statement recorded on 12.12.2007 at the time of hearing before the Sub-Committee. He, however, did not produce any to that effect. (iii) Graduate scale of pay had been introduced in the Middle School of Assam only in 1991 and the same was for the Science Graduate Teacher only. (iv) The Graduate Scale of Pay had not been introduced in the M.E. Schools for the period of the petitioner's claim, i.e., 1.10.1977 to 31.10.1980 during which he had been holding the post of Assistant Teacher in M.E. School. According to the answering respondent, the Expert Committee in its said meeting recorded that there was no provision for sanctioning graduate scale of pay to Assistant Teachers in M.E. Schools prior to 1991 and, therefore, the petitioner's claim cannot be accepted as he could not be sanctioned the benefit of the Graduate Scale of Pay for the period in question, i.e., 1.10.1977 to 31.3.1980. 8. 8. He further pleaded that the impugned order dated 18.1.2008 was thereafter passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education(S) Department based on the aforementioned view of the Expert Committee. Moreover, in compliance of the order dated 1.10.2007 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 5102/ 2002 instituted by the respondent No. 5 (Shri Jadav Das), the said authority after hearing the parties and on a perusal of all relevant report/records by his order dated 24.3.2008 adjudged him to be the senior most teacher of the School as per the provisions of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003 ('the Rules'), where after the said respondent was permitted to officiate as the Headmaster in-Charge of the School under F.R. 49(C) till regular selection was made. 9. In his counter, the respondent No. 5 has reiterated that the writ petitioner had been appointed as Stipendiary Teacher under the Half a Million Job Programme in the Mandakata M.E. School and that he used to receive a ad hoc recurring grant of Rs. 325 plus Rs. 20 as D.A. per month meant for maintenance of stipendiary teachers and that, therefore, the said remuneration could by no means be construed to be his pay in the graduate scale. According to the answering respondent, the M.E. School of the petitioner having been provincialised w.e.f. 1.10.1977 he was rightly extended the intermediate scale of pay from that date and thereafter the graduate scale of pay w.e.f. 1.11.1980 following the amalgamation with the High School on 26.9.1980. The answering respondent has, thus, emphasized that the pay received by the petitioner prior to November, 1980 was in the intermediate scale and that before the provindalisation of the School he was paid a consolidated lump sum recurring grant but not pay in the graduate scale. A seniority list dated 17.2.2007 said to have been prepared by the outgoing Headmaster of the amalgamated school has also been referred to projecting the answering respondent and the writ petitioner at Sl. Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. It has been emphatically stated that there is no government order authorizing the writ petitioner to hold the charge of the office of the Headmaster of the School. Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. It has been emphatically stated that there is no government order authorizing the writ petitioner to hold the charge of the office of the Headmaster of the School. Contending that the writ petitioner was not a party in C.R. No. 2137/90 and that, therefore, he is not entitled to the benefit of the adjudication thereof, it has also been insisted that the State respondents in deference to the order passed therein complied with the directions rendered in the judgment and order dated 16.9.1993 as a specific case and that after the lapse of a decade and half the petitioner legitimately cannot claim a similar relief. Referring to the Rules, the answering respondent has questioned the eligibility of the petitioner to hold the office of the Headmaster of the School as according to him, he is not possessed of a B.T. or a B.Ed. Degree as prescribed by Rule 14(4)(i) of the Rules. According to him, in terms of Rule 24(2)(iii) and (iv) as well as the notification dated 19.10.2005 which presently govern the issue, the impugned order dated 18.1.2008 had been passed on a correct appreciation of the facts and that the adjudication of his seniority over the writ petitioner vide the order dated 24.3.2008 in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in WP(C) No. 5102/2007 is also valid and unassailable. 10. This respondent, however, figures as writ petitioner in WP(C) No. 1910/2008 instituted by him to assail the order dated 3.5.2008 passed by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, whereby the order dated 29.3.2008 of the said authority allowing him to hold the charge of the office of the Headmaster of the School had been kept in abeyance. The respondent had been earlier thereto allowed this privilege following the determination made by the order dated 24.3.2008 recognising his superior seniority in service over the petitioner. In this context, the respondent has inter alia averred that he is a graduate in Science and holds a B.T. Degree. He has joined as Assistant Teacher of Mandakata M.E. School on 21.8.2008. He has reiterated that he had been in receipt of graduate scale of pay w.e.f. 23.2.1980. 11. In this context, the respondent has inter alia averred that he is a graduate in Science and holds a B.T. Degree. He has joined as Assistant Teacher of Mandakata M.E. School on 21.8.2008. He has reiterated that he had been in receipt of graduate scale of pay w.e.f. 23.2.1980. 11. In his additional affidavit in WP(C) No. 2081/2008, the petitioner therein has brought on record the order dated 17.6.1975 of the Inspector of Schools, Kamrup District Circle, Guwahati, conveying the decision to renew the ad hoc recurring grant of Rs. 325 plus Rs. 20 D.A. per month for a period of one year from 1.3.1975 to 23.2.1976 for maintenance of stipendiary graduate teachers of various schools named in the accompanying list. It has been affirmed that the name of Mandakata M.E. School figures at St. No. 54 thereof along with those of the petitioners in C.R. No. 2137/90. The petitioner has, thus, sought to contend that unmistakably he is also entitled to the benefit of graduate scale of pay for the period 1.10.1977 to 31.10.1980. 12. Mr. Nath has assiduously argued that the writ petitioner Abdul Rahman being similarly situated with the petitioners in C.R. No. 2137/ 90 in all respects, the action of the respondents in denying him the benefit of graduate scale of pay for the period 1.10.1977 to 10.12.1980 and consequential seniority in service is per se arbitrary and discriminatory and, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be annulled on that count alone. Emphasising that the petitioner is the only serving teachers so singled out for such discriminatory treatment, the learned Counsel has urged that it is a fit case in which a writ of mandamus ought to be issued to the respondents to release him his arrear salary in the graduate scale of pay for the aforementioned period and compute his seniority accordingly. The petitioner having been admittedly appointed in the year 1975 and there being no break in his service since then, considering the sequence of events, denial of graduate scale of pay as above and his due seniority in service is on the face of the record, arbitrary, unfair and unjust, he pleaded. 13. The petitioner having been admittedly appointed in the year 1975 and there being no break in his service since then, considering the sequence of events, denial of graduate scale of pay as above and his due seniority in service is on the face of the record, arbitrary, unfair and unjust, he pleaded. 13. The learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, as against this has argued that it having been unequivocally demonstrated by the records that no graduate scale of pay had been sanctioned for any Assistant Graduate Science Teacher in the M.E. Schools of the State before 1991 and that the petitioner was during the relevant period was in receipt of a recurring maintenance grant of Rs. 345 for stipendiary teachers, his claim for arrear pay in the graduate scale and resultant seniority in service is misconceived and, therefore, the impugned orders are valid in law. Mr. Pathak contended that apart from the fact that the petitioner was not a party in C.R. No. 2137/90, the decision therein does not lay down any proposition of law or embody a general direction to grant graduate scale of pay to all Assistant Graduate Teachers in M.E. Schools of the State for the period in question and, therefore, at this distant point of time the petitioner's expectation to be extended the same benefit in terms thereof is wholly misplaced. The petitioner's seniority in service being computable w.e.f. the date of receipt of graduate scale of pay, i.e., 1.11.1980, he is visibly junior to the respondent No. 5 and, therefore, the determination made by the State authorities in this regard as well does not call for any interference. 14. Mr. Das while reiterating the above has argued that there being no material on record contrary to the pleaded stand of the State respondents and as the issue is clearly covered by Rule 24(ii), (iii) and (iv) of the Rules and the notification dated 19.10.2005 stipulating that the computation of seniority has to be from the date of receipt of the graduate scale of pay, the petitioner's claim for arrear salary is unsustainable in law and, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be upheld and the interim restraint of status quo ought to be vacated. Mr. Mr. Das argued that as the respondent No. 5 has been validly installed as the Headmaster in-Charge of the School pursuant to the determination made vide the impugned orders, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 3.5.2008 suspending the same ought to be interfered with the interest of justice. 15. M.C. No. 1785/08 and M.C. No. 1786/2008 have been registered or applications filed by the respondent No. 5 (Shri Jadab Das) seeking his impleadment in WP(C) No. 4154/2007 and vacation/modification/ alteration of the interim dated 17.11.2007 passed in WP(C) No. 4154/ 2007 ordering maintenance of "status quo of service to the post on in-Charge Headmaster of the Mandakata High School". The pleaded facts being substantially identical in all the proceedings, the same have not been traversed separately for the sake of brevity. The narration, however, encompasses, the pith thereof to adequately project the issue(s) seeking resolution. 16. The rival pleadings and the argument advanced have received the due consideration of this Court. The basal facts are not in dispute. That the petitioner was at the first instance appointed as a stipendiary teacher under the "Half a Million Job Programme" at Mandakata M.E. School as per the resolution of the Managing Committee of the school w.e.f. 3.3.1975 is a matter of record. His appointment order does not reflect the scale of pay and instead discloses that he would draw the pay as per the Government Rules. The School was provincialised w.e.f. 1.10.1977 following which he was granted the intermediate scale of pay. The middle English school was amalgamated with its High School counter part on 26.9.1980 and the petitioner was accorded graduate scale of pay w.e.f. 1.11.1980. That the petitioner from the date of his appointment had been receiving an amount of Rs. 345 till provided with intermediate scale of pay on and from 1.10.1977 stands established from the order dated 17.6.1975 of the Inspector of School, Kamrup District Circle, Guwahati, Annexure 1 to the Additional Affidavit filed by him in WP(C) No. 2081/2008 as well as the facts pleaded in the state counter. This order dated 17.6.1975 reveals that this sum of Rs. 345 is composed of ad hoc grant of Rs. 325 and Rs. 20 as D.A. per month. This apparently is de hors any scale of pay, far less the graduate scale of pay as claimed by the petitioner. This order dated 17.6.1975 reveals that this sum of Rs. 345 is composed of ad hoc grant of Rs. 325 and Rs. 20 as D.A. per month. This apparently is de hors any scale of pay, far less the graduate scale of pay as claimed by the petitioner. This is of considerable Significance in the context of his appointment order which omits to mention his pay scale and the unassailable fact demonstrated by the order dated 16.7.2005 of the Inspector of Schools, Kamrup District Circle that the petitioner had been appointed as a graduate stipendiary teacher in "Half a Million Job Programme" and entitled only to a monthly recurring ad hoc grant as above. Thus, the petitioner's plea of receiving graduate scale of pay on his appointment as a Science Graduate teacher under "Half a Million Job Programme" in the Mandakata M.E. School and his relegation to the intermediate scale w.e.f. 1.10.1972 is clearly untenable. 17. The fact remains that he was provided with the graduate scale of pay only w.e.f. 1.11.1980. The respondent No. 5, Shri Jadab Das on the other hand, had admittedly joined the Mandakata High School as Assistant Teacher on 21.8.1978 and has been in receipt of graduate scale of pay w.e.f. 23.2.1980. It is noticeable that the petitioner as such has not disputed the correctness of the pleaded averments regarding the disallowance of graduate scale of pay to the stipendiary science teachers appointed under half a million job programme in the M.E. Schools of the State before the year 1991. Rule 24(2)(iv) of the Rules provides that for the purpose of seniority for promotion to the post of Headmaster, the period of service of teachers appointed under the Half A Million-Job Programme scheme in the M.E. Schools shall be counted only from the date of joining the High School. Vide notification No. B(3)S.677/2000/331 dated 19.10.2005 of the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education(S) Department, the inter se seniority of teachers of amalgamated high school/high madrassa is reckonable from the respective dates of receipt of graduate scale of pay. By applying the criteria as above, the petitioner's seniority in the school, therefore, essentially has to be computed w.e.f. 1.11.1980 which per se is subsequent in point of time from the date of receipt of graduate scale of pay by the respondent No. 5, i.e., 23.2.1908. By applying the criteria as above, the petitioner's seniority in the school, therefore, essentially has to be computed w.e.f. 1.11.1980 which per se is subsequent in point of time from the date of receipt of graduate scale of pay by the respondent No. 5, i.e., 23.2.1908. There is nothing on record to proclaim that before the enactment of the Rules or issuance of the notification as above, the petitioner's seniority had been determined from any date prior to 1.11.1980. 18. The judgment and order dated 16.9.1993 passed by this Court in C.R. No. 2137/90 said to have been instituted by similarly situated Science Graduate Teachers under half a million job programme in the middle English schools of the District of Kamrup, in the estimate of this Court, does not advance the case of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. Apart from the fact that the said decision records that such graduate teachers were appointed in the year 1973 under the aforementioned scheme at a fixed monthly salary of Rs. 150 per month which stood enhanced to Rs, 345 (Rs. 325 plus Rs. 20 as D.A.) per month w.e.f. 1.1.1975, no adjudication as such was made on the entitlement of the petitioners therein to the graduate scale of pay on such recruitment. The direction to release graduate scale of pay to them for the period 1.10.1977 to 10.12.1980 was solely founded on the plea of discrimination made by them contending that teachers similarly situated in other districts of the State had been sanctioned the same. 19. Not only the order of appointment of the petitioner and the order dated 17.6.1975 of the Inspector of Schools, Kamrup District Circle, alluded hereinabove cumulatively considered with the other materials on record unambiguously proclaim against receipt of graduate scale of pay by him before 1.10.1977, thus, rendering non est the basic premise on which the operative directions in the judgment and order dated 16.9.1993 were made, no binding proposition of law of general application is also decipherable therein to extend the same benefit to the petitioner. The petitioner's discontentment that he is the only graduate science teacher appointed under the half a million job programme in the M.E. Schools of the State who stands denied the graduate scale of pay cannot be a decisive consideration in his favour. 20. The petitioner's discontentment that he is the only graduate science teacher appointed under the half a million job programme in the M.E. Schools of the State who stands denied the graduate scale of pay cannot be a decisive consideration in his favour. 20. Incidentally, this Court, by order dated 11.5.2007 passed in WP(C) No. 1342/2007 instituted by the petitioner registering the same grievance qua the arrear salary in the graduate scale of pay for the period 1.10.1977 to 31.10.1980 had required the State respondents to submit his case to the Committee constituted in terms of the notification dated 22.8.2006. No direction was issued for payment of his arrear salary as claimed by him, the judgment and order dated 16.9.1993 passed in C.R. No. 2137/1990 notwithstanding. 21. A plain reading of the minutes of the proceedings of the sub-committee and the Expert Committee [Annexure S-1 and S-2 to the affidavit in opposition of the State respondents in WP(C) No. 155/2008] evinces that the petitioner was duly heard on his claim for arrear salary and seniority and on a threadbare scrutiny of all relevant records embodying the above facts, his contentions were negated. Thus, the administrative pursuits as the aforementioned documents would divulge were made in compliance of the orders dated 11.10.2007 and 17.8.2007 passed in WP(C) No. 1242 and WP(C) No. 4152/2007 filed by the writ petitioner. 22. The Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education(S) Department who had been the Chairman of the Expert Committee, on the basis of the recommendations made by these two committees passed the impugned order dated 18.1.2008 rejecting the petitioner's claim for arrear salary in the graduate scale of pay for the period 1.10.1977 to 31.10.1980 recording that till that time graduate scale of pay was not introduced in M.E. Schools. This order further mentions that the petitioner used to receive pay @ Rs. 345 per month from 3.3.1975 to 30.9.1977 and that he held the post of Assistant Teacher from 1.10.1977 to 3.10.1980 in the Mandakata M.E. School. 23. This order further mentions that the petitioner used to receive pay @ Rs. 345 per month from 3.3.1975 to 30.9.1977 and that he held the post of Assistant Teacher from 1.10.1977 to 3.10.1980 in the Mandakata M.E. School. 23. The impugned order dated 24.3.2008 was passed by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (E) Department, in deference to the order dated 1.10.2007 of this Court passed in WP(C) No. 5102/2007 instituted by the respondent No. 5 thereby disposing of his representation dated 14.5.2007 against the handing over of the charge of the office of the Headmaster of the School to the writ petitioner. On an exhaustive scrutiny of the relevant facts and the contemporaneous documents in the measure of Rule 24 of he Rules, the said Authority held the respondent No. 5 to be senior to the petitioner and allowed him to officiate as the Headmaster in-Charge of the School under FR 49 of the Rules till the regular selection to the said post. A perusal of the said order reveals that the said authority took note of the fact the petitioner had received the graduate scale of pay w.e.f. 1.11.1980 after the amalgamation of the Mandakata M.E, School with the Mandakata High School in comparison to respondent No. 5 who was in receipt thereof w.e.f. 23.2.1980. Referring to Rule 24(2)(iv) of the Rules, the petitioner's claim of seniority over the respondent No. 5 was, thus, rejected. Having regard to the mandate of the Rules this order as well is not vitiated by any legal flaw warranting any interference of this Court. The challenge to the impugned orders dated 18.1.2008 and 24.3.2008, therefore, fails. Incidentally the petitioner has also not questioned the assertion made on behalf of the respondent No. 5 that he lacks in the essential academic qualification for promotion to the post of Headmaster of a High/Higher Secondary School sans B.T. or B.Ed. Degree as prescribed by Rule 14(4)(i) of the Rules. The order dated 3.5.2008, impugned by the respondent No. 5 in WP(C) No. 1910/2008 is evidently a consequence of the interim order of this Court passed in WP(C) No. 155/2008 directing maintenance of status quo of the writ petitioner's service in the office of the Headmaster of the School. 24. Degree as prescribed by Rule 14(4)(i) of the Rules. The order dated 3.5.2008, impugned by the respondent No. 5 in WP(C) No. 1910/2008 is evidently a consequence of the interim order of this Court passed in WP(C) No. 155/2008 directing maintenance of status quo of the writ petitioner's service in the office of the Headmaster of the School. 24. In the face of the determination made hereinabove, sustaining the impugned orders dated 18.1.2008 and 24.3.2008, WP(C) No. 4154/2007, WP(C) No. 155/2008 and WP(C) No. 2081/2008 are dismissed. The interim order stands vacated. Resultantly WP(C) No. 1910/2008 is allowed. The order dated 3.5.2008 impugned therein is set aside. M.C. No. 1785/2008 and M.C. No. 1786/2008 are disposed of accordingly. No costs.