Amitava Roy, J.;- A common legal issue of formidable mo­ment involving analytical exposition of two sets of Rules framed in exercise of powers under Article 309 of the Constitution of Indiato govern the recruitment and conditions of ser­vice of the members of the Assam Second­ary Education (Provincialised) Service has cobbled the proceedings seeking adjudica­tion. 2. The Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 1982 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the 1982 Rules') and the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 2003 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the 2003 Rules') have in succession occupied the do­main of the instant judicial survey-the de­bate being whether a teacher of the afore­mentioned Service and governed by these Rules on transfer on his/ her request from one school to the other forfeits the benefit of past service for reckoning his/her seniority in the new institution. Decisions of this Court pro­claiming irreconcilable views have been ren­dered. Though the 2003 Rules enforced with effect from 11.8.2003 mandate through Rule 24(2)(v) thereof, loss of such seniority to be counted from the date of joining of the teacher in the school to which he/ she had been trans­ferred on his/ her request, such an unequivo­cal provision to this effect is absent in the 1982 Rules. The issue as well is as to the retrospectively or otherwise of this provision of the 2003 Rules. 3. Incidentally, W.A, No. 326/2006 (Abdus Ali Vs. Jiten Thakuria & Ors.) and W.A. No. 447/2006 (Harekrishna Das Vs.Gadadhar Choudhury & Ors.) preferred against the renderings in WP(C) No. 2332/2004 (Jiten Thakuria Vs. State of Assam & Ors.) and WP (C) No. 1912/2006 (Gadadhar Choudhury Vs. State of Assam & Ors.) de­termining against loss of seniority had been dismissed by respective Division Benches of this Court, whereafter, a challenge was made thereto unsuccessfully before the Apex Court in SLP(C) 2797/09 which, as well, was dis­missed in limine. That this dismissal of the SLP by the Apex Court concludes the debate on the issue has not been pleaded in course of the arguments. 4. A Division Bench of this Court com­prised two of us (Amitava Roy, J. and Hon'ble B.D. Agarwal, J.) by its order dated 14.5.2010 noticing the above sequence of events directed the Registry to lay the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for the need­ful to facilitate an authoritative pronouncement on the conundrum by a larger Bench. 4. A Division Bench of this Court com­prised two of us (Amitava Roy, J. and Hon'ble B.D. Agarwal, J.) by its order dated 14.5.2010 noticing the above sequence of events directed the Registry to lay the matter before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for the need­ful to facilitate an authoritative pronouncement on the conundrum by a larger Bench. After the proceedings in hand were laid before this Bench, notice of the reference was duly cir­culated for the information of all concerned leading to the assimilation of the pending ap­peals/ writ petitions to be addressed collec­tively. 5. Having regard to the above backdrop, allusion to the individual facts is inessential, though by way of illustration a sketch of the pleadings in WP(C) Nos. 177/2010 and 1046/2010 from which W.A. No. 131/2010 arises would be outlined as aprefatory edi­fice for a fuller appreciation of the rival con­tentions. Having regard to the Service to which the aforementioned Rules cater, this adjudi­cation would be essentially limited to the mem­bers of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service. 6. We have heard mr. N Dutta, Senior Ad­vocate assisted by mr. R. Sarma, Advocate forthe appellant in W.A. No. 131 /20101ead-ing the arguments in endorsement of the plea of retrospectivity of Rule 24(2)(v) of the 2003 Rules and the consequential loss of seniority on request transfer; Mr. M.R. Pathak, (learned Standing Counsel, Education De­partment, Government of Assam for the offi­cial respondents and mr. PK Roy Choudhury, Advocate assisted by mr. NG Kundu, Ad­vocate for the respondent No.5 who has en­tered appearance through a caveat. We have heard as well mr. RC Saikia, mr. GC Phukan, Mr. J. Chetia, Mr. A. Sarma, Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, mr. D Saikia, Advocates for the petitioners in WP(C) Nos. 3442/2007,3761/ 2006, 4349/2010, 2781/2010, 144/2011,13/2005 and 5310/2005. mr. AS Choudhury, Senior Advocate for the appellant in W. A, 178/2010 and Dr. B Ahmed, Advocate for the respondent No.4 in WP(C) No. 144/2011 have also been heard. 7. The pleaded facts in bare essentials per­taining to W.A. No. 131 /2010 reveal that the appellant Jamaluddin Ahmed, a Post Graduate in Arts in Arabic and also possess­ing B.Ed. Degree was appointed on 25.8.84 as a Classical Teacher (Arabic) at Bidyapara Boys' Higher Secondary School andjoined as such on 3.8.84 in the graduate scale of pay. 7. The pleaded facts in bare essentials per­taining to W.A. No. 131 /2010 reveal that the appellant Jamaluddin Ahmed, a Post Graduate in Arts in Arabic and also possess­ing B.Ed. Degree was appointed on 25.8.84 as a Classical Teacher (Arabic) at Bidyapara Boys' Higher Secondary School andjoined as such on 3.8.84 in the graduate scale of pay. His services were regularized with effect from 1.7.88, whereafter, on 17.3.92 he was appointed as Subject Teacher in Arabic and he assumed the said post on 24,3.92. Mean­while, vide order dated 28.12.85, one Sri Pradip Kr. Sarkar, respondent No.4, Sub­ject Teacher in English in the Hamidabad Higher Secondary School, Dhubri was trans­ferred to the Bidyapara Boys' Higher Sec­ondary School and he joined this institution on 10.1.86. Similarly, the respondent No.5, Samsul Haque Sheikh had also been trans­ferred to the Bidyapara Boys' Higher Sec­ondary School on 11.1.85. According to the appellant, judged by the date of his joining the school as Classical Teacher (Arabic) in the Graduate Scale of Pay on 3.9.1984, he was senior to these respondents. 8. On the eve of the retirement of the Principal-in-Charge of the school due on 31.12.2009, the Inspectorof Schools, Dhubri directed him on 30,12.2009 to hand over the charge of the said office to the appellant who was also requested to take over the assign­ment. According to the appellant, the outgo­ing Principal-in-Charge duly handed over the charge of the office of the Principal to him. It was, thereafter, that the Director of Secondary Education by his order dated 6.1.2010 allowed the respondent No.4 to hold the cur­rent charge of the office of the Principal of the school in addition to his normal duties. He was also allowed to exercise the financial power for drawal and disbursal of the sala­ries etc. until further orders. Being aggrieved, the appellant instituted WP(C) No. 177/2010 assailing the order dated 6.1.2010. This Court by its order dated 11.1.2010 while issuing no­tice on the writ petition directed maintenance of status-quo with regard to the post of Prin­cipal as on that date. The appellant has as­serted that as till then he had not handed over charge of the office of the Principal to the respondent No. 4, he continued to hold the said office. The respondent No.4 entered appear­ance in WP(C) No. 177/2010 and also filed an interim application (registered as MC. No. 508/2010) seeking vacation/modification al­teration of the order dated 11.1.2010. The appellant has as­serted that as till then he had not handed over charge of the office of the Principal to the respondent No. 4, he continued to hold the said office. The respondent No.4 entered appear­ance in WP(C) No. 177/2010 and also filed an interim application (registered as MC. No. 508/2010) seeking vacation/modification al­teration of the order dated 11.1.2010. An affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the ap­pellant. 9. The respondent No.5, Samsul Haque Sheikh thereafter joined the fray questioning the legality and validity of the seniority list dated 29.12.2009/1.1.2010 of the teachers of the Bidyapara Boys' Higher Secondary School depicting the appellant, the respon­dent No.4 and the respondent No.5 at serial No. 1, 7 and 2 respectively, On 15.2.2010, this Court issued Rule on this petition and in the interim, restrained the official respondents from acting on the impugned seniority list Both these writ petitions were analogously heard and by the judgment and order dated 28.4.2010 impugned in this appeal, WP(C) No. 177/2010 was dismissed holding the re­spondent No.4 to be senior to the writ ap­pellant. WP(C) No. 1046/2010 was allowed determining the respondent No.5 to be senior to the appellant. The order dated 6.1.2010 whereby the respondent No,4 was allowed to hold the current charge of the of­fice of the Principal of the school was sus­tained and consequently the amendment/ modification of the impugned seniority list was ordered. 10. In rendering the decision impugned in the appeal, the Learned Single Judge negated the contention of the appellant as well as the official respondents that on transfer on own request from the respective schools, the re­spondent Nos. 4 and 5 forfeited their past services for the purpose of seniority. It was held that computed on the basis of the dates of appointment of the three incumbents, the respondent No.4 was senior to the other two and that in absence of any indication in the orders of transfer that the same would entail loss of seniority of the transferee teachers, their past services could not be wiped off. It was observed as well that denial of T.A. & D. A. did not per se signify effacement of the past service for the purpose of seniority and that as the orders of transfer did not mention that those were on the request of the incum­bents concerned, allocation of lower senior­ity to the respondent Nos. It was observed as well that denial of T.A. & D. A. did not per se signify effacement of the past service for the purpose of seniority and that as the orders of transfer did not mention that those were on the request of the incum­bents concerned, allocation of lower senior­ity to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 was un­sustainable in law and on facts. That the or­ders of transfer were passed before the en­forcement of the 2003 Rules, which did not have any retrospective application, was also recorded. Referring to Rule 13 of the 1982 Rules, it was held that in absence of any indi­cation to that effect an incumbent on transfer on request would not forfeit his/ her past ser­vice for the purpose of seniority. 11. mr. Dutta has persuasively argued that having regard to the framework of the 2003 Rules and the contingencies the some seek to address, it is patently retrospective in operation and, thus, loss of seniority in terms of Sec­tion 24(2)(v) is an undeniable consequence even in respect of past transfers on own re­quest. Referring to the various provisions of the 1982 Rules defining Service, Class and Cadre, the learned senior counsel has urged that each grade under Rule 3(1) is an inde­pendent cadre and that in terms of Rule 13(1) the inter-se seniority of the then existing em­ployees in the respective cadre is only to be determined on the basis of the factors as enu­merated therein. mr. Dutta has insisted that the determinants identified in Rule 13(1) for the assignment of seniority of the existing employees are neither applicable nor relevant for the members entering into the Service on or after the appointed date of enforcement of the Rules i.e. 27.5.82 as the same is deter-minable on the basis of merit ascribed by the Selection Board envisaged by the Rules on the basis of selection(s) contemplated by Rule 13(3). The learned senior counsel has maintained that invocation or thy norms pre­scribed by Rule 13(1) to determine the inter-se seniority of the employees inducted in the Service after 27.5. 82 is impermissible. As regular selection in terms of the 1982 Rules for recruitment to the Service had not been held for all practical purpose Rule 13 (3) was given a go-bye and aphorism was resorted for suiting individual interests on consider­ations wholly irrelevant and collateral, he urged. 82 is impermissible. As regular selection in terms of the 1982 Rules for recruitment to the Service had not been held for all practical purpose Rule 13 (3) was given a go-bye and aphorism was resorted for suiting individual interests on consider­ations wholly irrelevant and collateral, he urged. The learned senior counsel argued that it was in this background, in order to herald a determinate model of action that a bipartite agreement was entered into on 19.5.89 be­tween the State Government and the Assam Secondary Education Teachers 'and Employ­ees' Association to maintain school wise se­niority of the teachers to ensure promotion to the senior most incumbent of the institution and not to a transferee teacher from other school. To reinforce this plea, mr. Dutta has relied on the decision of this Court in Ghanakanta Das Vs. State of Assam & Ors. : 1996 (I) GLT 548. While exhaustively referring to the two streams of decisions airing irreconcilable views on the issue, individual analysis whereof would follow, the learned senior counsel also sought to draw sustenance to his plea of retro spectivity of the 2003 Rules in general and Rule 24(2)(v) in particular from the Cir­cular dated 30.8.2001 of the Director of Sec­ondary Education, Assam, Clause-7 whereof postulated loss of seniority of a teacher trans­ferred from one school to another on his/ her own request. According to mr. Dutta, the con­cept of school wise seniority which is ingrained in the 1982 Rules met judicial imprimatur in Ghanakanta Das (supra) and metamorphic in the Policy dated 30.8.2001 to be eventu­ally engrafted in Rule 24(2)(v) of the 2003 Rules. Any determination of inter-se seniority of teachers on the general and unreserved ap­plication of the norms contained in Rule 13(1) following inter-school transfer on request in disregard of these considerations is grossly erroneous and non-est in law, he maintained. 12. mr. Dutta asserted that the text of Rule 24(2) is in substance a replica of the contents in Clauses 2, 5 and 7 of the Policy dated 30.8.2001 and tantamount to legislation by incorporation. He reiterated that the language employed in Rule 24(2)(iii) and (v) testifies those to be of retrospective effect. Accord­ing to the learned senior counsel, Rule 24 as­signs legislative status to the Policy dated 30.8.2011 to resolve the stalemate resulting from the conflicting decisions of this Court on the issue. He reiterated that the language employed in Rule 24(2)(iii) and (v) testifies those to be of retrospective effect. Accord­ing to the learned senior counsel, Rule 24 as­signs legislative status to the Policy dated 30.8.2011 to resolve the stalemate resulting from the conflicting decisions of this Court on the issue. Highlighting the essential attributes of a retrospective law, the learned senior counsel insisted that Rule 24(2)(v) in the background of its incorporation in the 2003 Rules is draped therewith and ought to be ac­corded retro spectivity to attain the underly­ing legislative purpose. Apart from the deci­sions of this Court expressing divergent views on the issue, the learned senior counsel pressed into service the pronouncements of the Apex Court in i) K.P. Sudhakaran Anr. Vs. Stale of Kerala & Ors.: (2006) 5 SCC 386 ', ii) The State of Bombay (now Maharashtra) Vs. Vishnu Ramchandra : AIR 1961 SC 307 ; iii) Shri Chaman Singh & Anr. Vs. Srimathi Jaikaur : (1969) 2 SCC 429 ; iv) Zile Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.: (2004) 8 SCC 1 ; v) Shyam Sundar & Ors. Vs. Ram Kumar & Anr.: AIR 2001 SC 2472 -, 13. Mr. Pathak, representing the Educa­tion Department of the State, has submitted that the appointments in the schools governed by the Rules had throughout been institution-wise even on selection. According to him, se­niority of the teachers was also maintained schootwise and no concept of inter-school transfer was entertained. He insisted that this enjoinment did not ease even on the pronvicialisation of service and school-wise compartmentalization was maintained. Though inter-school transfer used to occur on own request even after the 1982 Rules, schoolwise seniority was not undermined, he pleaded. Referring to the 2003 Rules, the learned Standing Counsel argued that transfers there­under are contemplated only in public inter­est as indicated in Rule 28(2) and that the same if occasioned on any incumbent's re­quest, loss of seniority is to ensue in terms of Rule 24(2)(v). mr. Pathak argued that the 2003 Rules were patently retrospective, whereby the implicit was made explicit. He referred to the Circular dated 30.8.2001 to contend it to embody a Government policy on the issue acting as a transitional provision bridging the two Rules. mr. Pathak also re­ferred to the written instructions contained in the letter No. GBEST/CC/22/2010/206 dated 23.8.2011 of the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. He referred to the Circular dated 30.8.2001 to contend it to embody a Government policy on the issue acting as a transitional provision bridging the two Rules. mr. Pathak also re­ferred to the written instructions contained in the letter No. GBEST/CC/22/2010/206 dated 23.8.2011 of the Commissioner and Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Education (Secondary) Department to project the de­partmental stand in supplementation of his address. 14. Mr. Roychoudhury, per contra, has as­serted with reference to the Assam Second­ary Education (Provincilisation) Act, 1977 and both the Rules that the language used in Rule 24(2)(v) ipso facto would not make the provision retrospective in operation. He in­sisted that as by Rule 32 of the 2003 Rules the 1982 Rules and the Circular dated 30.8.2001 had been repealed to extinction, no declaratory or clarificatory emblem can be ascribed to the former legislation to permit its retrospective operation. Dismissing the rel­evance of the decision of this Court in Ghanakata Das (supra) projected to be a binding precedent propounding schoolwise seniority, the learned counsel argued that the above decision was based on consensus and that loss of seniority on request transfer was contingent on the facts of each case and could not be assumed without reference thereto. The learned counsel adverted to Section 30 of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 amending the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, to underline that in absence of transitional provision akin thereto and the absolute repeal of the 1982 Rules, Rule 24(2)(v) has to be essentially prospective, there being no intervening legislation to suggest its retrospectively. Referring to the principles of interpretation of statutes relevant for ascertaining as to whether a legislation is prospective or retrospective in nature, the learned counsel has urged that the 2003 Rules- when tested on the basis thereof- can by no means be adjudged to be retrospective in operation. It being a remedial and not a declaratory law effectuating radical changes in the 1982 Rules, it essentially is prospective in nature, he in­sisted. This is more so in absence of any pre­cise and obvious legislative mandate to this effect discernible in the 2003 Rules, he urged. The following decisions were relied upon: i) S. S. Bola & Ors. Vs. B.D. Sardana & Ors., (1997) 8 SCC 522 ', ii) India Tobacco Co. Ltd. Vs. The Com­mercial Tax Officer, Bhavanipore & Ors. (1975) 3 SCC 512 iii) Kolhapur Canesttgar Works Ltd. Ft Anr. Vs. The following decisions were relied upon: i) S. S. Bola & Ors. Vs. B.D. Sardana & Ors., (1997) 8 SCC 522 ', ii) India Tobacco Co. Ltd. Vs. The Com­mercial Tax Officer, Bhavanipore & Ors. (1975) 3 SCC 512 iii) Kolhapur Canesttgar Works Ltd. Ft Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2000) 2SCC 536 iv) Anderton Vs. Ryan, 1985 (2) AER 358 v) Sajjan Singh Vs. The State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 464 vi) Sakuru Vs. Tanaji, AIR 1985 SC 1279 vii) K. S. Paripoornan Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., (1994) 5 SCC 593 viii) The Central Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Their Workmen, AIR 1960 SC 12 ix) Bishntt Narain Mishra Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., AIR 1965 SC 1567 x) Master Ladies Tailors Organisation & Anr Vs. Minister of Labour & National Service, 1950 (2) AER 525 15. mr. RC Saikia has assiduously argued with particular reference to Rule 1 (2) of the 2003 Rules that the same is of prospective effect. Contending that transfer on request having been permitted on genuine and compelling circumstances and the inter-sc senior­ity of the incumbents having been fixed in terms of the norms prescribed by Rule 13(1) of the 1982 Rules, retrospective effect to the 2003 Rules would result in severe prejudicial con­sequences to the concerned incumbents many of whom have retired from service as on date. He urged that in absence of specific indica­tion to the contrary, the 2003 Rules have to be adjudged to be prospective to prevent highly iniquitous and disastrous fallout. mr. Saikia to buttress his arguments relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in- i)B.L Gupta&Anr. Vs. M.C.D, (1998) 9 SCC 223 ii) K.P. Sudhakaran &Anr. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., (2006) 5 SCC 386 , iii) Tejshree Ghag& Ors., Vs. Prakash Parashuam Patil & Ors., (2007) 6 SCC 220 And also of this Court in Gopal Chandra Sarkar & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., 2007(4)GLT410. 16. mr. Phukan, mr. Chetia, mr. Sarma and mr. Barbhuiya adopted the arguments ad­vanced by mr. Dutta. mr. Barbhuiya in addi­tion while referring to the various provisions of the 2003 Rules submitted that any transfer effected prior thereto was governed by the 1982 Rules. He reiterated that Rule 24(2)(v) clearly visualize schoolwise seniority and is of retrospective effect, 17. Whereas mr. mr. Phukan, mr. Chetia, mr. Sarma and mr. Barbhuiya adopted the arguments ad­vanced by mr. Dutta. mr. Barbhuiya in addi­tion while referring to the various provisions of the 2003 Rules submitted that any transfer effected prior thereto was governed by the 1982 Rules. He reiterated that Rule 24(2)(v) clearly visualize schoolwise seniority and is of retrospective effect, 17. Whereas mr. Choudhury appearing for the appellant in W. A. 178/2010 pointed out that the same involved a middle school and was thus beyond the purview of the present scrutiny; but on principle endorsed the points urged by mr. Dutta, Dr. Ahmed appearing for the respondent No.4 in WP(C) No. 1440/ 2011 insisted that the present determination is inessential for the issues involved therein. mr. D Saikia reterred to the decision of a Di­vision Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 5151 94 byway of portrayal of his stand. 18. mr. Dutta in his reply argued that the issue, in view of the vacillating stand of the State Government, ought to be decided on merit notwithstanding the consequences to follow. In reaffirmation of his assertions al­ready made, the learned senior counsel main­tained that the 2003 Rules were patently de­claratory in nature and thus ought to be ac­corded retrospectively for the actualization of the purpose for its formulation and enforcement 19. This Court responding to the challenges from time to time on the determination of in­ter se seniority of the teachers governed by the two Rules in the context of own request transfers has responded both in favour and against the impingements. In view of the back­drop in which the issue under scrutiny has been referred to this Bench, advisable it would be to have a bird's eye view of the contrast­ing determinations. The decisions rendered, in our estimate, are predominantly fact ori­ented without any occasion for an in depth in­quest of the provisions of the two Rules for an authoritative pronouncement on the issue in the transitional legislative background. 20. In Sushil Pal (supra), the petitioner's transfer on request was with his knowledge that he would be junior most in the school to which he was thus posted. He was also de­nied TA/DA for the purpose. Though, the ini­tial ad-hoc appointments of the parties in the fray were Later on regularised with retrospec­tive effect, the challenge made by the peti­tioner against loss of seniority was rejected. 21. He was also de­nied TA/DA for the purpose. Though, the ini­tial ad-hoc appointments of the parties in the fray were Later on regularised with retrospec­tive effect, the challenge made by the peti­tioner against loss of seniority was rejected. 21. In 2002 (1) GLT 216 ; Raisuddin Vs. State of Assam a Single Bench of this Court returned a finding that whenever a person is transferred on his own request he/she is not entitled to carry his seniority as other­wise one may indulge in a fishing expedition to become the senior most teacher in some other school and thus become entitled to earn the eligibility for consideration for promotion to the next higher post therein. 22. With reference to Rule 24(2)(V) of the 2003 Rules, the petitioner in 2008 (2) GLT 539: Madan Chutia Vs. State of Assam who had been transferred to the school of Respondent No.4 on 23,02.1987 on his own request- was held to be junior than the Lat­ter. Reference was also made to the adminis­trative guidelines/policy contained in the cir­cular dated 30.08.2001. As transfer of Dimbeswar Saikia (Respondent No.4) to the school of the petitioner therein was made on 4.5.2004 i.e. after the enforcement of the 2003 Rules, this Court interfered with the order con­struing the latter to be the senior to the former and the issue of inter se seniority was re­manded to the concerned State authority un­der the said Rules. Noticeably, in Raisuddin (supra) and Madan Chutia (supra), the State respondents had adopted the plea of loss of seniority following own request transfer and reliance on the aforementioned administrative guidelines/policy was also made. 23. In Abdul Matin Talukdar Vs. Hari Charan Medhi & Ors. reported in 2006 (Suppl) GLT 493, the Respondent No.1 therein had been transferred on 03.09.1994 to the school of the appellant in which he had joined on 13.05.1984, The Respondent No.1 however in his previous school had joined as Science Teacher on 30.09.1983 and his ser­vices were provincialised with effect from 01.01.1984, he having been allowed to hold the charge of the office of the Headmaster of Kochudala High School to which he had been transferred in preference to the appellant, a dispute on their inter se seniority surfaced. A Division Bench of this Court in this appeal inter alia noticed that the transfer was prior to the date of the administrative guidelines/policy dated 30.08.2001 and also the admission of the learned Standing Counsel, Education De­partment of the State that 2003 Rules was prospective in operation. That the adminis­trative guidelines/policy cannot be given ret­rospective effect was observed therein. It was recorded as well that the 2003 Rules did not provide any indication of its retrospect city. In the contextual facts, it was held that want of sanction of TA7DA, per se did not lead to the irresistible conclusion that the transfer of the Respondent No. 1 was on his personal request and not in public interest or adminis­trative exigency and that omission to mention about public interest or administrative exi­gency in the order of transfer ipso facto could not render the transition to be one on the re­quest of the incumbent concerned. 24. A Single Bench of this Court in Bidyut Bushan Nath (supra) relying on the determi­nation made in Raisuddin (supra) rendered a finding that the petitioner therein who had been transferred on his own request would not carry with him the seniority based on his past services in the previous school. How­ever, reference to either the 1982 Rule or the Circular dated 30.08.2001 was not made. 25. At variance with the above view, in Jiten Thakuria (supra), a Single Bench of this Court held that the 2003 Rules were admit­tedly prospective and as pleaded on behalf of the State Government, the issue of inter se seniority involved therein was to be deter­mined by invoking Rule 13 of the 1982 Rules. The petitioner therein was transferred on his own request to the School of the Respondent No.6 and was held junior to him. This Court while holding that the 1982 Rules did not speak of school wise seniority, but cadre-wise seniority, returned a finding that Rule 13 did not contemplate loss of seniority on re­quest transfer. Adverting to the contextual facts, His Lordship held that neither did the records containing the order of transfer did mention that the petitioner had agreed to forego his past services nor was he made to understand the said consequences. It was observed as well that the request had not been entertained on that condition either. Adverting to the contextual facts, His Lordship held that neither did the records containing the order of transfer did mention that the petitioner had agreed to forego his past services nor was he made to understand the said consequences. It was observed as well that the request had not been entertained on that condition either. While concluding that the determinative factor to as­certain the inter se seniority was the date of continuous appointment, His Lordship in paragraph 13 made the following significant observations: "There is another most vital aspect of the matter. Even assuming that as per the Rules of 1982, seniority was to be determined school wise, can it be said that in all cases of request transfer, the incumbent would forego his past service in the earlier school. The answer will be in the negative. There is nothing wrong in mak­ing a request for transfer by a school teacher. Thergjnav be very many grounds for such re­quest but unless one undertakes to forego his past service and/or his such request is accepted with the condition of forfeiture of the past ser­vice with the specific stipulation that, he would be entitled to count his seniority in the new school from the date of joining only, later on, he cannot be deprived of his past service towards seniority, lest it is argued that had it been made known to him, he would not have accepted such conditional transfer." 26. In Writ Appeal No.320/2006 pre­ferred against this verdict, a Division Bench of this Court refused to interfere. The State Government's plea urging loss of seniority of the writ petitioner/Respondent No. 1 therein based on the circular dated 30.08.2001 and the 1982 Rules was dismissed on the ground that the former was repugnant to Rule 13 of the latter. It was held as well that the 2003 Rules had no retrospective effect to upset the already fixed seniority of the members of the service. The decision in Raisuddin (supra) was distinguished observing that it did not deal with the purport of the Rule 1982 Rules or the school/cadre wise seniority. 27. The challenge vis-a-vis the same issue in Gadadhar Choudhury (supra) was not en­tertained by drawing sustenance from the view expressed in Jiten Thakuria (supra). The ap­peal therefrom in Writ Appeal No.447/2006 also failed inter alia noticing that the transfer had occurred prior to the 2003 Rules. 27. The challenge vis-a-vis the same issue in Gadadhar Choudhury (supra) was not en­tertained by drawing sustenance from the view expressed in Jiten Thakuria (supra). The ap­peal therefrom in Writ Appeal No.447/2006 also failed inter alia noticing that the transfer had occurred prior to the 2003 Rules. Rely­ing on the decision in Writ Appeal No.448/ 2003, Abdul Matin Talukdar (supra), a Single Bench of this Court in Umesh Bhuyan (Su­pra) declared that 1982 Rules did not con­ceptualize school-wise seniority but cadre wise seniority irrespective of inter school transfer. It recorded as well the admission on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties that 2003 Rules had no retrospective opera­tion. His Lordship held that though the Re­spondent No.4 has been transferred on his own request and no provision for TA/DA had been made, he not having been informed that the consequence of loss of seniority, the same would not ensue. 28. The skeletal survey of the otherwise incompatible streams of the judicial deduc­tions highlight the following facets of the conundrum- (1) Whether the 1982 Rules contem­plate school wise or cadre wise seniority in the service? (2) Whether the circular, 2001 and the 2003 Rules have any retrospective effect? (3) Whether a teacher transferred on his own request from school to the other prior to the 2003 Rules forfeit his/her past service in the previous school unless the request has been entertained on such a stipulation to his/ her knowledge? (4) Whether tack of sanction of TAJ DA per se would connote on request transfer? 29. The pleadings as essential as well as the competing arguments bearing on the is­sue have been duly assayed. As the stand off essentially has its roots in the 1982 Rules hold­ing the sway till succeeded by the 2003 Rules, apt it would be to initiate the adjudicative pursuit therefrom. Noticeably, the rival pleas did not refer to any statutory enactment or administrative norms governing the issue of transfer prior to the 1982 Rules. 30. As indicated hereinabove, the 1982 Rules had been framed in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India for regulating recruit­ment and conditions of service of teachers of the High and Higher Secondary Schools provincialised under the Assam Secondary Education (Provinciatisation) Act, 1977. These Rules were brought into force with ef­fect from 27.5.82. As indicated hereinabove, the 1982 Rules had been framed in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India for regulating recruit­ment and conditions of service of teachers of the High and Higher Secondary Schools provincialised under the Assam Secondary Education (Provinciatisation) Act, 1977. These Rules were brought into force with ef­fect from 27.5.82. These define, amongst oth­er s,- 2.(c) Board' to mean the Selection Board con­stituted under the Assam Education Department Selection Rules, 1981 nomenclature as the State Level Board or the District Level Board consti­tuted under Rule 7(2)(a), as the case may be. (h) 'Period of Service' as period of continu­ous service from the date of appointment as defined in the Act. (j) 'Select List' as the Select List of candi­dates prepared by the Board in order of prefer­ence. (k) 'Service' as the Assam Secondary Edu­cation (Provincialised) Service. 31. Rule 3 dealing with Class and Cadre set out the various grades in the Service enumerating posts corresponding thereto. Whereas the post of Principal of the Higher Secondary and Multi Purpose Schools are included in Grade-I, those of Headmaster or Headmistress of High School, Superintendent of High Madrassa and Vice Principal of Higher Secondary and Mulli Purpose School and Subject Teacher or Post Graduate Teacher of Higher Secondary and Multi Pur­pose School are included in Grade-II. The post of Graduate Teaeher of Higher Second­ary and Multi Purpose Schools or High School or High Madrassa and Senior Classi­cal Teaeher or Senior Hindi Teacher having Bachelor degree as general qualification are within the ambit of Grade-IV of the Service. 32. Rule 3(2) postulates that each Grade shall form an independent cadre and the mem­bers of any cadre shall have no claim for ap­pointment in a higher cadre except in accor­dance with the provisions of the Rules. Rule 6 mandates the method of recruitment of a teacher of provincialised High and Higher Secondary School by direct recruitment only on the basis of advertisement, test and inter­view to be conducted by the District Level Selection Board and the State level Selection Board respectively. Rule 6 mandates the method of recruitment of a teacher of provincialised High and Higher Secondary School by direct recruitment only on the basis of advertisement, test and inter­view to be conducted by the District Level Selection Board and the State level Selection Board respectively. The process therefor is detailed in Rule 7 which obligates that direct recruitment as envisaged in Rule 6 has to be on the basis of selection made by the District Level Selection Board in the case of High School teachers and State Level Selection Board in the case of Post-Graduate teachers of Higher Secondary School. To effectuate the process as contemplated, the Member-Secretary of the District Level Selection Board in case o f High School and the Mem­ber- Secretary of the State Level Selection Board in case of Higher Secondary School before the end of each year would make an assessment regarding the number of vacancies Legislative Assembly Constituency-wise, to be filled up during the next year and invite applications in the prescribed form through advertisement in newspapers from desirous candidates registered with the employment exchange disclosing the minimum qualifica­tions, number of posts with category and the particulars of reservation for SC/ST/OBC etc. for the vacancies of High School and Higher Secondary Schools respectively. Rule 7(1)(b) provides that on receipt of the applications, the Selection Board would scrutinize and pro­cess the application forms, the mark sheets and other necessary testimonials of the can­didates for interview by the Interview Com­mittee and on completion of the interviews the Selection Board would add marks secured by different candidates in the interview to the marks secured for qualifications and experi­ence as a teacher in the manner as set out in Schedule-III and prepare a list constituency-wise for each Legislative Assembly Constitu­ency in a descending order of the total marks secured by the candidates out of the total marks mentioned in Schedule-III. In terms of Rule 7(1)(c), the Selection Board would thereafter finalise the lists constituency-wise of as many successful candidates as the ad­vertised vacancies and submit the lists to the Director of Secondary Education, Assam for approval. In terms of Rule 7(1)(c), the Selection Board would thereafter finalise the lists constituency-wise of as many successful candidates as the ad­vertised vacancies and submit the lists to the Director of Secondary Education, Assam for approval. Rule 7(1)(d) mandates that the Director on receipt of the lists as aforesaid would authenticate the same and cause pub­lication thereof by affixing copies in the office Notice Board of the Director of Secondary Education, Inspector of Schools and Deputy Inspector of Schools and in any other man­ner as deemed fit and proper. The appoint­ments would be made by the Inspector of Schools in case of High School ad the Direc­tor of Secondary Education in case of Higher Secondary School from amongst the selected candidates in order of merit from the authen­ticated select list(s). This Rule prescribes a total bar to any appointment of persons out­side the select list(s) which, if made, would be construed to be ob initio invalid to the ex­ception of compassionate appointments made by the Government. The validity of the select lists as per Rule 7(1)(e) would be for one year from the date of publication thereof. The com­position of the District Level Selection Board and the State Level Selection Board has been duly provided by the Rules. The conditions of eligibility for direct recruitment have as well been stipulated thereby. 33. Rule 9 deals with recruitment by pro­motion to the Service. Subclause (2) thereof enjoins that the posts of Principal in Grade I and the posts of Headmaster, Superintendent or Vice-Principal in Grade II of the Service will be filled up from the Select List prepared by the State Level Selection Board and the post of Assistant Headmaster or Assistant Su­perintendent in Grade HI shall be filled up from the Select List prepared by the District Level Selection Board in order of preference. The length of qualifying service in the feeder grades and the academic qualification/ degree earn­ing preferential weightage have also been pro­vided. Rule 9(5) in unambiguous terms re­quire that the post of Vice-Principal in Grade II of the Service shall be filled up by promo­tion school- wise on seniority basis from the Graduate Teachers having 10 years continu­ous teaching experience. The length of qualifying service in the feeder grades and the academic qualification/ degree earn­ing preferential weightage have also been pro­vided. Rule 9(5) in unambiguous terms re­quire that the post of Vice-Principal in Grade II of the Service shall be filled up by promo­tion school- wise on seniority basis from the Graduate Teachers having 10 years continu­ous teaching experience. Rule 10 which de­lineates the general procedure for promotion mandates that before the end of each the ap­pointing authority shall make an assessment of the likely number of vacancies to be filled up by promotion in the next year in each cadre and in each school. The appointing authority is obliged to furnish to the concerned Board documents and informations about the num­ber of vacancies and the list of the candidates eligible for promotion in order of seniority.-Rule 10(2) predicates in clear terms that sepa­rate lists for each cadre stating the name of the school have to be furnished indicating the cadre to which the promotion is to be con­sidered. The character roll and other records of the eligible candidates are also required to be forwarded to the Board which on the completion of the process of assessment by it would recommend candidates about double the number of vacancies in order of prefer­ence. The appointing authority as postulated by Rule 10(4) would on receipt of the lists of recommended candidates, fill up the vacan­cies in accordance with the preference indi­cated therein. 34. Rule 13 provides the norms for fixa­tion of seniority in service. Being the focal point of the legal wrangle, Rule 13 is quoted hereinbelow for ready reference: "13. Seniority. (1) The inter se seniority of the existing em­ployees in the respective cadre shall be deter­mined In relation to the (a) Date of continuous appointment. (b)Date of Joining, (c) Date of Birth. (2) In case of any dispute, the Director shall refer the matter in details to The State Govern­ment whose decision shall be final. (3) In case of the members entering into the service on and after the appointed date their inter se seniority shall be determined on the basis of the merit list furnished by the Board." 35. (2) In case of any dispute, the Director shall refer the matter in details to The State Govern­ment whose decision shall be final. (3) In case of the members entering into the service on and after the appointed date their inter se seniority shall be determined on the basis of the merit list furnished by the Board." 35. Rule 14 adumbrates that except as pro­vided in the Act and the Rules, all matters re­lating to pay and allowances, leave, pension, joining time, discipline, transfer, deputation and other conditions of service shall be regu­lated by the general rules or orders of Gov­ernment for the time being in force. Whereas Rule 15 empowers the Government to relax the requirement of any rule on satisfaction that the operation thereof may cause undue hard­ship in any particular case, Rule 17 deals with repeal and saving. As this provision of the Rules is also of immense significance, it is ex­tracted hereinbelow: "17. Repeal and Saying :- The rules corre­sponding to these rules and in force immedi­ately before commencement of these rules are hereby repealed; Provided that all orders made or action taken under the rules so repealed or under any gen­eral orders ancillary thereto shall be deemed to have been done or taken under the correspond­ing provision of these rules." 36. Neither the Rules in force immediately prior to the 1982 Rules nor the bearing thereof on the issues involved has surfaced in course of the arguments. Rule 17, on a plain reading thereof, saves all orders made or action lake under those Rules or any general orders an­cillary thereto being construable as done or taken under the 1982 Rules. The present scrutiny, thus, would be confined to the audit of the 1982 and the 2003 Rules, the purport of the provisions thereof and the decisive im­pact on the rival projections, 37. A close analysis of the scheme of the 1982 Rules, in our view, unambiguously dem­onstrates the concept of schoolwise senior­ity. Each grade in the Service as defined in Rule 3 is visualized as an independent cadre, the movement or transition of the members whereof to a higher cadre being permissible only in accordance with the provisions thereof and not otherwise. A close analysis of the scheme of the 1982 Rules, in our view, unambiguously dem­onstrates the concept of schoolwise senior­ity. Each grade in the Service as defined in Rule 3 is visualized as an independent cadre, the movement or transition of the members whereof to a higher cadre being permissible only in accordance with the provisions thereof and not otherwise. The method of recruitment as set out in Rule 6 and 7 contemplates direct recruitment on the basis of selection to be con­ducted by the District Level Selection Board for the High Schools and the State Level Se­lection Board for the Higher Secondary Schools. The vacancies are identified institution-wise located within the respective State Assembly Constituencies and appointments thereto are made on the basis of select list prepared there for merit-wise. The appoint­ments are made to the respective schools from the select lists authenticated by the Di­rector of Secondary Education, Assam. Rule 7(1)(d) ordains a total bar to the appointment of persons beyond the select list except, how­ever, on compassionate ground by the Gov­ernment. Rule 9 and 10 read conjointly also testifies that promotions are made to the higher posts institution-wise. Rule 10 in par­ticular stipulates that at the end of each year an assessment of the likely number of vacan­cies to be filled up by promotion in each cadre in each school has to be made on the basis of the documents and information's to be fur­nished to the State Level Selection Board or the District Level Selection Board, as the case may be. Depending on the number of posts to be filled up by promotion, a list of candi­dates found suitable therefor in order of merit would be drawn up by the concerned Board and promotions are to be made from the List of such recommended candidates. 38. Rule 13 which occupies the centre stage of the polemic clearly envisages two sets of employees-one existing at the time of framing of the Rules whose seniority is to be reckoned in terms of the determinants set out in sub-Rule (1) thereof and the other entering into service after the 1982 Rules had been enforced. Rule 13(1) enjoins that the inter-se seniority of the existing employees in the re­spective cadre would be determined by-(a) Date of continuous appointment, (b) Date of Joining, and (c) Date of Birth. Rule 13(1) enjoins that the inter-se seniority of the existing employees in the re­spective cadre would be determined by-(a) Date of continuous appointment, (b) Date of Joining, and (c) Date of Birth. In the teeth of the lay out of the Rules and the all pervasive concept of institution-wise cadre, the inter-se seniority fixed by application of these factors would essentially have to be on school basis. Any other notion would be repugnant to the enjoinment of school-wise cadre of the grades, appointment wherefrom to higher cadre being permissible only in consonance with the provisions of the 1982 Rules. In other words, the existing employees at the time of enforcement of the Rules would be entitled to have their seniority shcoolwise computed after being assimilated in their respective cadre therein on the basis of the norms enumerated in Rule 13(1). In case of incumbents inducted into the Service thereafter, their inter-se se­niority would be determined on the basis of the merit assigned to them by the respective Selection Board. As determined hereinabove, appointment either by direct recruitment or by promotion to any grade /cadre in the Ser­vice being patently institution-wise, their in­ter-se seniority would be on the basis of their placement in the merit list and, that too, in their respective schools. 39. The written instructions contained in the letter No. GB-Estl/CC/22/2010/206 dated 23.8.2011 of the Commissioner & Sec­retary to the Government of Assam (Second­ary) Department affirms such school-wise re­cruitment against vacancies existing therein. The instructions further disclose that in provincialised schools, the services of Assis­tant Teachers/ Subject Teachers who had been appointed by the School Managing Committee prior to pro vine ionization were provincialised in the year 1995 school-wise and their services were exclusively placed at the disposal of their respective institutions. No fresh appointment order was also issued to them and their existing services were provincialised in their schools. The aforemen­tioned respondent authority has disclosed fur­ther that the Education Department of the State had never prepared any district-wise or State-wise seniority list of Assistant Teach­ers or Subject Teachers and those were pre­pared generally by the head of the institution school-wise. According to the said authority, thus, the seniority of the Assistant Teachers/ Subject Teachers of a school was confined to that school only and promotions to higher posts were made on the basis thereof. According to the said authority, thus, the seniority of the Assistant Teachers/ Subject Teachers of a school was confined to that school only and promotions to higher posts were made on the basis thereof. That any transfer of an Assistant Teacher/Subject Teacher from one school to another besides being impermissible the request therefor was generally not entertained on the ground that if effected the same would undermine the se­niority of the existing teachers, thus, compro­mising with the academic environment was also highlighted. While admitting that inspite of this, transfers had to be ordered in rare cases on individual requests as well as against vacancies arising due to retirement or death of an incumbent, it has been asserted that such movements were allowed only in exceptional fact situations and in relaxation of the rigour of the Rules on an assessment thereof. Ac­cording to the departmental authority, not only the cadres of teachers under the 1982 Rules are school-wise, the seniority as well is so. It has been asserted as well that the 1982 Rules did not visualize security of seniority of teach­ers on transfer. That no State-wise or dis­trict-wise seniority list or gradation list had been prepared under the 1982 Rules has also been admitted. The departmental authority has, thus, emphasized that under the 1982 Rules, the recruitments being school-wise, the date of joining in that particular school has been construed to be the determining factor and the date of continuous appointment as appearing in Rule 13(1) had been regarded to be one of appointment in that institution. 40. Referring to Rule 24(2), 25 and 28(2) of the 2003 Rules, it has been averred that thereby the concept of school-wise seniority in the 1982 Rules has been reaffirmed and portrayed in explicit terms. That Rule 32 of the 2003 Rules though repealed the 1982 Rules, the actions taken under the earlier Rules had been saved has also been mentioned to indicate the continuum of the ordainment of institution-wise seniority. With the formulation of the 2003 Rules, the 1982 Rules were re­pealed. That Rule 32 of the 2003 Rules though repealed the 1982 Rules, the actions taken under the earlier Rules had been saved has also been mentioned to indicate the continuum of the ordainment of institution-wise seniority. With the formulation of the 2003 Rules, the 1982 Rules were re­pealed. The present adjudicative pursuit hav­ing regard to the debate confronting., it, thus, comprehends three classes of teachers in the Assam, Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service, narnely- (1) Those existing at the time of fram­ing of 1982 Rules; (2) Those inducted in the Assam Sec­ondary Education (Provincialised) Service during the subsistence of the 1982 Rules; (3) Those recruited as per the 2003 Rules. 41. As already alluded hereinabove, the 1982 Rules while cataloguing the grades in the service with the corresponding posts en­compassed therein enjoined that each grade would form an independent cadre and member of a cadre would have no claim for ap­pointment to a higher cadre except in accor­dance with the provisions thereof. Two broad modes of appointment contemplated by the Rules were- direct recruitment and promo­tion. In view of the recitation of the relevant provisions of the 1982 Rules in this regard, no repetition is called for. Suffice it to state that Rule 6,7,9 & 10, which dwell upon these two modes of appointment complement each other to decisively substantiate the school-wise mould of the constituents i.e. the senior­ity of the teachers to be computed on the basis of the service rendered by them in their respective institutions. The preparation of the select list constituency wise of the State per se is not limitative against this legislative sanc­tion otherwise discernible from the text and texture of the 1982 Rules. 42. The norms referred to in Rule 13(1) of the 1982 Rules to reiterate, had been pre­scribed to determine the inter se seniority of the teachers in the respective cadre existing in the service at the time of enforcement of 1982 Rules. The fixation of the inter se se­niority as per the prescribed criteria was a legislative mandate. They, thus formed a ho­mogeneous group in contradistinction to Rule 13(3) which predicated merit adjudged by the Selection Board(s) to be the measure for fixa­tion of the inter se seniority. These post 1982 Rules inductees, therefore, constituted a sepa­rate group and were logically junior to the ex­isting members of the service in view of their belated recruitment thereto. They, thus formed a ho­mogeneous group in contradistinction to Rule 13(3) which predicated merit adjudged by the Selection Board(s) to be the measure for fixa­tion of the inter se seniority. These post 1982 Rules inductees, therefore, constituted a sepa­rate group and were logically junior to the ex­isting members of the service in view of their belated recruitment thereto. Patently, the de­terminants for fixation of inter se seniority as enjoined in Sub-Rule 1 & 3 of Rule 13 of the 1982 Rules had been identified for such com­putation for two groups of employees con­templated thereby. In absence of any provi­sion in the Rules to the contraiy neither the inter-changeability of the two sets of criteria nor uniform application of any one by these to two classes of employees is permissible. On an analysis of the provisions of the 1982 Rules, the inevitable conclusion is that the ex­isting and the prospective members of the service were to be integrated school-wise and their inter se seniority were to be accordingly fixed by application of two independent cri­teria as set out in Rule 13(1)& 13(3). The departmental instruction that no district-wise or State- wise seniority list or gradation list had ever been prepared or published during the continuance of the 1982 Rules authenticates this Legislative configuration. The inter se seniority grade wise of the members of the service governed by the 1982 Rules was school oriented so much so that any other in­terpretation would be transgressive of the schematic cast thereof. 43. Axiomatically, no inter-school trans­fer except in supervening public interest or administrative exigencies could be contem­plated while the 1982 Rules were in force. Transfers, as the departmental instructions reveal, however, did occur on contingencies, namely, on individual requests or for accommodating/adjusting illegal appointees to name a few. Transfers also had to be made against an existing or death/retirement vacancy in Schools. These instances of practical experi­ence though incontrovertible ipso facto can­not dismantle the edificial/framework of the 1982 Rules enjoining school- wise seniority of the members of the service governed thereby. In this premise, whereas inter- school transfers on overwhelming public interest or unavoidable administrative exigencies could be construed to be venial eventualities with­out occasioning the consequential forfeiture of past services of the incumbent concerned, similar protection for own request transfers was indubitably not allowable. In this premise, whereas inter- school transfers on overwhelming public interest or unavoidable administrative exigencies could be construed to be venial eventualities with­out occasioning the consequential forfeiture of past services of the incumbent concerned, similar protection for own request transfers was indubitably not allowable. In this con­text, seniority on the basis of service by a post 1982 Rules incumbent not recruited in terms thereof is incomprehensible except, however, in cases of compassionate appointment by the Government. Appointees' de hors the 1982 Rules as mandated thereby are non-entities for all intents and purposes and thus the ser­vice rendered by them is non est. 44. The above notwithstanding, transfers admittedly were allowed amongst others on individual requests resulting in conflicting claims of seniority. Senior teachers in their respective Schools were faced with the hazard of denial of promotional prospects conse­quent upon the transfer of incumbents from other Schools with longer length of service. 45. In one such fact situation, this Court in Ghanakanta Das (supra) noticed a bipartite agreement dated 19.05.1989 between the State Government and the Assam Second­ary Education Teachers & Employees Asso­ciation pertaining to the conditions of service of the teacher members of the association. Clause -10 of the said agreement read thus: "The State Selection Committee has already been entrusted to prepare a list of Principals, Vice Principals, Headmasters, Superintendent of High Madrassa, in accordance of the service Rules, in this connection, instructions have been issued to the Inspectors of Schools to prepare seniority list of District basis". It is de­cided to continue the existing practice of pro­motion of the senior most teacher in the cadre tilt regular promotion is given after preparation of the seniority list and it is also decided that the senior most teacher would not be deprived of promotion by transferring other Education (sic) from other Schools, normally." This clause thus conveyed the consensus against inter School transfer entailing depri­vation of promotion of a senior teacher in one institution on the transfer of another thereto from a different School, but possessed of longer length of service. 46. Presumably, the inter-school transfers on individual requests, though few and far in between continued to occur with resultant controversies pertaining to inter se seniority and promotional prospects. Absence of any specific provision in the 1982 Rules prohibit­ing inter-school transfer seems to have diluted the approach of the departmental authorities as well. 46. Presumably, the inter-school transfers on individual requests, though few and far in between continued to occur with resultant controversies pertaining to inter se seniority and promotional prospects. Absence of any specific provision in the 1982 Rules prohibit­ing inter-school transfer seems to have diluted the approach of the departmental authorities as well. A spate of litigations followed and the tussle for inter se seniority as the present proceeding witnesses lingers on. Presumably to provide a guideline in this regard, certain norms were formulated by the Government and circulated vide the communication dated 30.8.2001. Clause-7 thereof being of for­midable significance is extracted hereinbelow: "7. The teacher who has been transferred on his own request to any other School cannot claim his seniority in that School in the inter se seniority list. His inter se seniority in that school will be counted w.e.f. the date of joining in the School." 47. This set of administrative instructions/ guidelines, which it is submitted at the Bar has not either been interfered with and/or struck down by any Court of law, visibly embodies the notion of school-wise seniority as man­dated by the 1982 Rules. The departmental discernment of the 1982 Rules, ordaining school-wise seniority suggesting against inter-school transfer, thus, manifested in the guide­lines/policy dated 30.08.2001 and remained in force till the framing of the 2003 Rules. 48. The abovementioned new set of Rules which are in force with effect from 11.08.2003 is also an yield of the exercise of powers con­ferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India to regulate to recruit­ment and the conditions and the service of persons appointed to the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service. Apart from defining amongst others 'Graduate Teacher1, 'Post Graduate Teacher', 'High School', 'Higher Secondary School' and 'Teacher', the 2003 Rules in Rule 3 set out inter alia the classes and cadres of the teach­ing staff. Recruitment to the post of Post Graduate Teacher of provnicialised Higher Secondary School under Rule 7 is obligated to be by direct recruitment upon selection to be conducted by the School Selection Com­mittee for which its Member Secretary has to ensure the vacancy position of posts in the School. On receipt of the applications in response to the advertisement to be published there for, the School Selection Committee would hold an interview and draw up a panel of candidates double the number of vacan­cies advertised. On receipt of the applications in response to the advertisement to be published there for, the School Selection Committee would hold an interview and draw up a panel of candidates double the number of vacan­cies advertised. A Graduate Teacher with Post Graduate degree in the relevant subject in the same School is entitled to preference in the matter of selection for appointment of Post Graduate Teacher. The select list prepared by the School Selection Committee is to be approved by the State Level Approval Com­mittee before being acted upon for making appointments therefrom. Rule - 7 mandates that any appointment from outside the select list would be ab initio invalid unless made on compassionate ground by the Government. 49. Recruitment to the post of Graduate Teacher of a provincialised High/Higher Sec­ondary and Multi Purpose School under Rule - 8 is to be made also by the School Selec­tion Committee following the same method as for Post Graduate Teachers. The select list however needs to be approved by the District Approval Committee for appointment for Graduate and Intermediate Teacher selected by the School Selection Committee. Under Rule 12, recruitment of Principal in the Pligh/Higher Secondary and Multi purposes School is to be filled up only by direct recruitment on the recommendation of the State Selection Board and the select list is to be made district wise, so that the vacancies within the District can be filled up therefrom. Recruitment to the post of Vice Principal/ Headmaster/ Head­mistress/ Superintendent/Assistant Headmas­ter/Assistant Headmistress of High, H.S., and M.P. School is to be made by promotion, principally on the basis of school seniority from eligible Graduate and Post Graduate teach­ers as mentioned therein. The selection, how­ever, has to be made on the basis of recommendation of the State Selection Board. The inter se seniority of the candidates for the re­spective posts is to be determined in terms of corresponding norms contained in Rule 24 of the Rules. Rule 15 which sets out the proce­dure for selection for promotion as contem­plated in Rule-14 requires the State Selec­tion Board to prepare the select list school wise. Rule-14 & 15 thus read in conjunction testifies that promotions are made School wise to the posts contemplated therein chiefly based on school wise seniority. Rule 15 which sets out the proce­dure for selection for promotion as contem­plated in Rule-14 requires the State Selec­tion Board to prepare the select list school wise. Rule-14 & 15 thus read in conjunction testifies that promotions are made School wise to the posts contemplated therein chiefly based on school wise seniority. Rule 24 pro­claims the norms for fixation of inter se se­niority of teachers of the Graduate cadre and Post Graduate cadre in a school for filling up the vacancies of Vice Principal. The manner of computation of seniority to the post of Headmaster/Superintendent/Asstt. Head-master/Asstt. Superintendent is elaborated in Rule 24(2). The contents of classes -1, II, III & V of Rule 24(2) in essence are the replica of paragraphs 2,3,5 and 7of the administra­tive guidelines/policy dated 30.08.2001. 50. Rule 28(2) clarifies that a member of the service would be liable to be posted any where in the State of Assam or beyond or to any other department of the Government, a body corporate in the affairs of which the Government may be substantially interested or an Autonomous District Council if so re­quired in the interest of public service and that in such a case, the member concerned shall not have any option against such posting or transfer. This provision underlines in no un­certain terms that the service is a transferable one in public interest. This assumes signifi­cance in the face of Rule 24(2)(v) which en­joins loss of past service for seniority on own request transfer of ateacher from one school to another. Whereas Rule 30 deals with the power of relaxation of the Government, by Rule 32 the 1982 Rules have been repealed saving, however, all orders made or action taken thereunder or under any general order ancillary thereto as construed to have been validly made or taken under the 2003 Rules. That the paradigm of the 2003 Rules also in­dubitably adheres to the concept of school-wise seniority of recruitment and promotion to higher posts is clearly decipherable from the constituent provisions thereof. Though the select list for direct recruitment to the post of Principal is to be made district wise to fill up vacancies within the district, this per se does not detract from this conclusion which is oth­erwise inevitable. 51. Rule 24(2)(V) the retrospectively or otherwise, in particular whereof is the pivot of the dissensus is quoted herein below for ready reference. 51. Rule 24(2)(V) the retrospectively or otherwise, in particular whereof is the pivot of the dissensus is quoted herein below for ready reference. "Rule 24(2)(v) - the teacher, who have been transferred on his/her own request to any other School cannot claim seniority in that school in the inter se seniority list. His/ her seniority in that school will be counted with effect from the date of his/her joining in that school." 52. Assuredly, the 2003 Rules came into force on and from 11.08.2003, the date on which in terms of Rule 1 (2) it had been pub­lished in the official gazette. The provisions of the two Rules read in juxtaposition present striking identicalness in the essential features thereof. The concept of school- wise senior­ity in the various grades of service as ingrained in the 1982 Rules is unmistakably mirrored in this successor legislation, i.e. the 2003 Rules. The recruitment to the entry posts in the teach­ing cadre is by direct recruitment school-wise, the difference being the substitution of the Dis­trict Level Selection Board and the State Level Selection Board by the School Selec­tion Committee, the District Level Approval Committee and the State Level Approval Committee having been contemplated to ap­prove the select lists for the Graduate and Post Graduate teachers respectively. Though, ap­pointment to the post of Principal in the High School/Higher Secondary and Multipurpose School is by district-wise selection, promo­tions to the other posts in the teaching cadre is school- wise based on seniority therein and the relevant Annual Confidential Reports. The norms regarding fixation of seniority as en­grafted in Rule 24 also enjoin fixation thereof institution- wise. Rule 24(2)f v) is in substance a reproduction of paragraph 7 of administra­tive guideline/policy dated 30.08.2001 stipu­lating in clear terms that a teacher who has been transferred on his/her own request to any other school cannot claim seniority in that school in the inter se seniority list and that his/her seniority in that school would be counted with effect from date of his/her join­ing therein. That the service is otherwise a transferable one and that a member thereof is liable to be posted elsewhere as detailed in Rule 20(2) if required in public interest is ap­parent on the face of the said provision logi­cally, therefore, though a transfer from one school to the other is otherwise permissible under the 2003 Rules in public interest, on request transfer would entail effacement of the past services of the teacher concerned for the purpose of his/her seniority in the school to which he/she may be transferred. Such on request transfer therefore, ought to be one not warranted in public interest but to accom­modate him/her to remedy his/her inconve­nience sans the same. 53. In determining the retrospectivity or otherwise of the 2003 Rules, the existence of the bilateral agreement between the State Government and the Assam Secondary Edu­cation Teachers and Employees Association as well as the aforementioned administrative guidelines/policy cannot in any manner be dis­regarded or discounted. As alluded herein-above, these manifest the essentiality of such a consensus and/or departmental edict to obviate the mounting confrontations amongst the serving teachers qua their inter se senior­ity and their ultimate prospects for promotion to the higher post in the respective schools/ institutions. These instruments were, thus, con­ceived of to secure an uniformity in approach to the issue of loss of seniority or otherwise in the event of on request inter school transfers made neither in public interest nor in adminis­trative exigency and thus furnish a certitude to the conditions of service of all concerned. 54. In K.P. Sudhakaran & Anr. (supra) promotion to the post of UDC under the Kerala State and Sub-ordinate Service Rules 1958 in the Registration Department of the State of Kerala was to be made from a State wise seniority list of the LDC (Lower Divi­sion Clerks) prepared with reference to their first appointment to the service as LDC, which was district-wise, the respondents on their own request were transferred as LDC to another District and were permitted to join thereat by taking their rank below the junior most local LDCs of that District. In the even­tual State wise revised provisional seniority list dated 13.11.1990, that was drawn up for the purpose of promotion, the transferred LDCs were shown junior to the local LDCs of the District to which they had been trans­ferred on request. In the even­tual State wise revised provisional seniority list dated 13.11.1990, that was drawn up for the purpose of promotion, the transferred LDCs were shown junior to the local LDCs of the District to which they had been trans­ferred on request. A Government Order dated 02.01.1961 had been published to the effect that the seniority of the transferred LDCs would have to be reckoned from the date of their joining in the District to which they had been transferred on their own request, 55. Rule 27 of the aforementioned Rules though initially did not incorporate this con­sequence, the same was amended by a Gov­ernment order dated 13.01 .1976 mandating the same. While rejecting the impingement of the inter se seniority as above, their Lord­ships held that in service jurisprudence, the general rule is that if a Government servant holding a particular post is transferred to the same post in the same cadre, the transfer would not wipe out his length of service in the post till the date of transfer and the period of service in the post before his transfer has to be taken into consideration in computing se­niority in the transferred post. It was pro­pounded as welt that if a Government ser­vant is so transferred on his own request, the transfered employee will, have to forgo his seniority till the date of transfer and would be placed at the bottom below the junior most employee in the new cadre or department. Their Lordships remarked that it was so as the Government servant getting transfer to an­other unit or department on personal consid­erations cannot be permitted to disturb the seniority of the employees in the department to which he is transferred by claiming that his service in the department from which he has been transferred should be taken into account. Their Lordships further observed that this was as well because the person appointed to a particular post in a cadre should know the strength of the cadre and the prospects of promotion on the basis of seniority list pre­pared for the cadre and any addition from outside would disturb such prospects. 56. Their Lordships further observed that this was as well because the person appointed to a particular post in a cadre should know the strength of the cadre and the prospects of promotion on the basis of seniority list pre­pared for the cadre and any addition from outside would disturb such prospects. 56. The Apex Court in Sakura (supra) had rejected the plea that the amendment to Sec­tion 93 of the Andhra Pradesh (Telengana Area) Tenancy and Agricultural lands Act, 1950 making Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applicable to appeals preferable under Section 90 of the State Act was retro­spective in operation. Observing that neither the unamended Section 93 was ambiguous nor the legislature had indicated to furnish such clarification to that effect vide the amendment. The obvious import of this decision is that the amendment was not construed to be clarificatory in nature as the unlamented sec­tion was neither equivocal nor ambiguous in its elements. 57. That vacancies arising before any amendment of the relevant Rules for recruit­ment to a service has to be in accordance with the unamended Rules and that the Rules are to be accorded prospective effect had been reiterated by the Apex Court in B.L. Gupta and Another (Supra). 58. In Sajjan Singh (supra), their Lord­ships of the Apex Court reaffirmed that a stat­ute is not retrospective merely because a part of the prerequisites for its invocation is drawn from a time antecedent to its passing. 59. It was held in Master Ladies Tailors Organization & Ann (supra) that no statute or order is to be construed as having a retro­spective operation unless such a construction appears very clearly or by necessary and dis­tinct implication in the Act. 60. In S.S. Bola (supra), the Apex Court reiterated the apt quoted precept of the leg­islative intendment as a fundamental tool for interpretation of a statute. With reference to decision rendered in Robert Wigram Rawford Richard Spewner, (1846-50), 4 MIA 179, their Lordships emphasized that when the plain meaning of the words used in a statute indicates a particular state-of-affairs, the Courts are not required to get themselves busy with the "supposed intention" or with "policy underlining the statute" or to refer to the ob­jects and reasons which accompanied the Bill while introducing the same on the floor of the legislature. 61. 61. That if a statute is curative or merely declares the provisions of law, retrospective operation would be more rightly ascribed to it than to a legislation which may prejudicially affect the past rights and transactions was propounded by the Apex Court in Shri Choman Singh & Anr. (supra). In Anderson Vs. Ryan (supra). Lord Roskill of the House of Lords ruled that a statute ought be given a purposive construction and if more than one interpretation is possible, the Courts should favour one that would eliminate "mischief" which existed prior to the enactment thereof and which is sought to be remedied thereby. 62. In Zile Singh (supra) their Lordships reaffirmed the cardinal principle of construc­tion of statutes that every enactment is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have a retro­spective operation. It was propounded that an express provision to make a statute retro­spective is not essential and the presumption against retrospectivity may be rebutted by necessary implication especially in a case where the new law is made to cure an ac­knowledged evil for the benefit of the com­munity as a whole. In further elaboration, it was held that such a presumption against the retrospective operation is not applicable to declaratory statutes and that to determine the nature of any enactment, regard must be had to substance rather than to the form. It was elucidated that if a legislation is to explain an earlier one, it would be without any object unless construed retrospectivity. While defin­ing an explanatory enactment to be one to supply an obvious omission or to clear up doubt as to the meaning of the previous legis­lation, their Lordships recorded that if a statute is curative or merely declaratory of the previous law, retrospective operation is gen­erally intended. That a clarificatory amend­ment of this nature will have retrospective ef­fect was underlined as well. Referring to the celebrated work of Maxwell on Interpreta­tion of Statutes (j2th Edn.), their Lordships authoritatively opined mat the rule against ret­rospective operation was a presumption only and as such, could be overcome not only by the express words in the enactment but also by the circumstances sufficiently strong to dis­pel it. 63. Referring to the celebrated work of Maxwell on Interpreta­tion of Statutes (j2th Edn.), their Lordships authoritatively opined mat the rule against ret­rospective operation was a presumption only and as such, could be overcome not only by the express words in the enactment but also by the circumstances sufficiently strong to dis­pel it. 63. It was propounded in Shyam Sundar (supra) that the function of a declaratory stat­ute is to supply an omission or explain a pre­vious statute and when such a statute is passed it comes into effect when the previ­ous enactment was passed. Their Lordships observed that the power to enact law includes one to declare what was the previous law and when such a declaratory enactment is passed invariably it has to be retrospective. The fol­lowing extracts from Craies on Statute Law, 7th Edition and Principles of Statutory .Inter­pretation by GP. Singh as noticed are quoted hereinebelow: “Craies on a Statue Law, 7th Edition : If a doubt is felt as to what the common law is on some particular subject, and on Act is passed to explain and declare the common law, such an Act is called a declaratory Act.... G.R Singh on Principles of Statutory Interpretation: For mod­ern purposes a declaratory Act may be defined as an Act to remove doubts existing as to the common law, or the meaning or effect of any statute. Such Acts are usually held to be retro­spective. The usual reason for passing a de­claratory Act is to set aside what Parliament deems to have been a judicial error, whether in the statement of the common law or in the inter­pretation of statutes. Usually, if not invariably, such an Act contains a preamble and also the word 'declared1 as well as the word 'enacted'. But the use of the words it is declared is not conclusive that the Act is declaratory for these words may, at times, be used to introduce new rules of law and the Act in the latter case will only be amending the law and will not neces­sarily be retrospective. In determining, there­fore, the nature of the Act, regard must be had to the substance rather than to the form. If a new Act is 'to explain' an earlier Act, it would be without object unless construed retrospec­tive. In determining, there­fore, the nature of the Act, regard must be had to the substance rather than to the form. If a new Act is 'to explain' an earlier Act, it would be without object unless construed retrospec­tive. An Explanatory Act is generally passed to supply an obvious omission or to clear up doubts as to the meaning of the previous Act. it is well settled that if a statute is curative or merely declaratory of the previous law retro­spective operation is generally intended.". 64. Their Lordships also recalled the ob­servations of the Apex Court in R. Rajagopal Reddy (dead) by Lrs. Vs. Padmini Chand-rasekharan (dead) by Lrs., (1995) 2 SCC 630 that a declaratory enactment declares and clarifies the real intention of the legislature in connection with an earlier existing transaction or enactment and that it does not create new rights or obligations. It was reiterated as well that if a statute is curative or merely declara­tory of the previous law, retrospective op­eration is generally intended. 65. In State of Bombay (now Maharashtra) (supra), the respondent challenged the order of his externment, amongst others, on the ground that Section 57 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, was not applicable to him as his conviction on which the decision of expatria­tion was based was recorded before coming into force of that enactment. He pleaded that the order of internment could not have been passed against him, unless the said convic­tion had taken place after the Bombay Police Act, 1951 was enforced. The respondents, as the contextual facts disclosed, was con­victed under Section 380 and 144 of the In­dian Penal Code on 16.11.1949 i.e. before the Bombay Police Act, 1951 had been passed. Under Section 57 of the aforementioned Act, a power had been conferred on the au­thorities mentioned therein to remove persons convicted of certain offence in the contingen­cies mentioned from within the local limits of their jurisdiction. The opening line of Section 57 thereof construed to be relevant for the instant purpose, reads as follows: Section 57. Removal of persons convicted of certain offences-If a person "has been con­victed"-Their Lordships interpreted the word "acquired" to be both in the present perfect tense to mean either "shall have been" or "shall be". The opening line of Section 57 thereof construed to be relevant for the instant purpose, reads as follows: Section 57. Removal of persons convicted of certain offences-If a person "has been con­victed"-Their Lordships interpreted the word "acquired" to be both in the present perfect tense to mean either "shall have been" or "shall be". Having regard to the scheme of the enact­ment as a whole, it was held that the former meaning had been intended and that the words "has been" described past actions to express a hypothesis without regard to time." In according interpretation to the words "has been", their Lordships drew the clue from the scheme of the enactment as well as the Legislative intendment for the effectuation thereof. 66. The issue in K.S. Paripoornan (supra) was whether the additional amount payable @ 12% per annum on the market value un­der sub-Section (1 -A) inserted in Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, was to be awarded to every case where the reference was pending before the reference Court on 24.9.1984 (the date of the commencement of the Amending Act) irrespective of the date on which the award was made by the Col­lector. In deference to the recommendations of the Law Commission and the Land Acqui­sition Review Committee, a Bill (Bill No. 67 of 1982) for amending the various provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was intro­duced in the Lok Sabha on 30.4.1982. This Bill was withdrawn and another Bill (Bill No. 63/1984) was introduced and the same was enacted as the Amending Act, 1984 which came into force on 24.9.1984, A transitional provision was contained in Section 30 of the Amending Act. The following excerpt de­serves to be quoted:- "30. This Bill was withdrawn and another Bill (Bill No. 63/1984) was introduced and the same was enacted as the Amending Act, 1984 which came into force on 24.9.1984, A transitional provision was contained in Section 30 of the Amending Act. The following excerpt de­serves to be quoted:- "30. Transitional provisions-(1) the provi­sions of sub-section (1-A) of Section 23 of the principal Act, as inserted by clause (a) of Sec­tion 15 of this Act, shall apply, and shall be deemed to have applied, also to, and in relation to - (a) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal Act pending on the 30" day of April, 1982 [the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982, in the House of the People], in which no award has been made by the Collector before that date; (b) every proceeding for the acquisition of any land under the principal Act com­menced after that date, whether or not an award has been made by the Collector be­fore the date of commencement of this Act." 67. It would be apparent from the above extract that the transitional provision of sub­section (1-A) of Section 23 of the Principal Act as inserted by Clause (a) of Section 15 of the Amending Act was made applicable to certain proceedings pending on 30.4.1982 [the date of introduction of the Land Acquisi­tion (Amendment) Bi 11,1982 in the House of the People]. The above extract would reveal that certain amended provisions were thereby made applicable to the proceedings/ award/ claim for compensation as mentioned therein pending/ passed/made on 30.4.1982 [the date of introduction of the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill, 1982 in the House of the People] as well as before/ after to the extent as indicated therein. "This decision as referred to hereinabove has been relied upon to urge that in absence of such a transitional provi­sion, there was no continuity between the 1982 Rules and the 2003 Rules and that in the face of unqualified repeal of the former by the latter, the 2003 Rules could not be construed to be retrospective. "This decision as referred to hereinabove has been relied upon to urge that in absence of such a transitional provi­sion, there was no continuity between the 1982 Rules and the 2003 Rules and that in the face of unqualified repeal of the former by the latter, the 2003 Rules could not be construed to be retrospective. Having regard to the overwhelming compatibility of the schemes of the two Rules, fusing into tatter enactment as well as the well discernible un­derlying legislative intent against inter-school transfer on individual requests, with conse­quence of loss of seniority on the event thereof, were absence of a transitional provi­sion identical, to the legislation referred to in the K.S. Paripoornan (supra) is of no invali­dating import. 68. The Apex Court in Koihapur Canesugar Works Limited & Anr. (supra) enounced that the normal effect of repeating statute/provision is to obliterate the substan­tial enactment/ provision from the statute-book completely as if it had never been passed and the statute/ provision must then to be con­sidered as a law that never exist. It was held that if a provision of a statute is uncondition­ally omitted without having a saving clause in favour of the pending proceedings, all actions must stop where the omission finds them and if final relief has not been granted before the omission takes effect, it cannot be granted af­terwards. Their Lordships held the view that the operation of repeal or deletion as to the future and the past largely depends on the savings applicable and in a case where a par­ticular provision in a statue is omitted and in its place another provision dealing with the same contingency is introduced without a sav­ing clause in favour of the pending proceed­ings, then it can be reasonably inferred that the intention of the legislature is that the pend­ing proceedings shall not continue but fresh proceedings for the same purposes may be instituted under the new provision. 69. It was held in India Tobacco Co. Ltd. (supra) that the general rule of construction is that the repealing of the Act does not revive anything repealed thereby. 69. It was held in India Tobacco Co. Ltd. (supra) that the general rule of construction is that the repealing of the Act does not revive anything repealed thereby. While observing that this proposition however is subject to a different intention appearing in the repealing statute, their Lordships observed that if the intention indicated expressly or by necessary implication in the subsequent statute is to ab­rogate or wipe of a former enactment wholly or in part, than it would be a case of total or potato repeal but it was merely to modify the former enactment by engrafting an excep­tion or granting an exemption or by super adding conditions or suspending its operation such modification would not amount to a re­peal. 70. The quintessence of the legal propo­sitions expounded in the authorities cited at the Bar, thus evince that a statute ought not to be construed to be retrospective in operation merely because a part of the preconditions for the enforcement thereof has to be im­ported from a time prior to the passing thereof. Though, ordinarily an enactment is expected to be prospective, retroactivity thereto ought to he ascribed if the construction thereof sug­gests so either in explicit terms or by neces­sary implication. While it is no longer res intergra that a statute that is curative or de­claratory in nature is expected to be legisla­tively intended to have a retrospective op­eration, presumption against retrospectively of an enactment can be rebutted even by nec­essary implication specially in an eventuality where the new law is made to cure an ac­knowledged evil. As held in Anderton Vs. Ryon (supra), apurposive construction in such a contingency has to be assigned to the stat­ute so as to eliminate the "mischief1 that ex­isted prior to the formulation thereof it being the live purpose of the subsequent legislation. 71. Though, the principles gleanable from the pronouncements pertaining to the law of repeal admit of no cavil, on a combined read­ing of Rule 17 and Rule 32 of the 1982 Rules and 2003 Rules respectively, the plea of total annihilation of the former to negate the asser­tion of retrospective operation of the latter does not commend for acceptance. 71. Though, the principles gleanable from the pronouncements pertaining to the law of repeal admit of no cavil, on a combined read­ing of Rule 17 and Rule 32 of the 1982 Rules and 2003 Rules respectively, the plea of total annihilation of the former to negate the asser­tion of retrospective operation of the latter does not commend for acceptance. Aregnant homogeneity between the two Rules being patently decipherable, the latter in essence providing explicitly the consequence of loss of seniority for own request transfer, tangible yet latent in the former, the contention of the repeal of the 1982 Rules with overall extinc-tive bearing on the orders passed or actions taken thereunder rendering those non-est and thus beyond the purview of the 2003 Rules, thus cannot be sustained. 72. A conjoint reading of the two Rules projects the latter to be a declaratory enact­ment clarifying the real intention of the fram-ers thereof vis-a-vis the earlier orders passed and/or the action taken under the 1982 Rules and viewed in their perspective the words "have been transferred" applied in Rule 24(2)(v) of the 2003 Rules, has to be essen­tially construed to encompass all own request inter-school transfers made prior to the en­actment thereof as well. The schemes of both the Rules as well as the underlying legislative intendment predicate this unmistakable con-clusioa 73. We are, thus, of the unhesitant opin­ion that own request inter- school transfers were not contemplated under the 1982 Rules either in public interest or in administrative exi­gency. The 2003 Rules carries the same man­date explicitly enjoining the consequence of loss of past services for seniority of the in­cumbent concerned in such an eventuality. A perceptible continuum of this legislative or-dainment persists to effectuate the retrospectively of the 2003 Rules to remedy the pur­ported state of ambiguity, in determinability and the consequential inconsistency in ap­proach of the State authorities on the issue opposed to the letter and spirit of the 1982 Rules. The 2003 Rules essentially is thus a clarificatory law and is held to be retrospec­tive in operation on and from the date of en­actment of the 1982 Rules. The 2003 Rules essentially is thus a clarificatory law and is held to be retrospec­tive in operation on and from the date of en­actment of the 1982 Rules. This determination, notwithstanding, as we are conscious that as on date, the issue of own request inter-school transfer after the 1982 Rules, has meanwhile been finally settled in many cases including those of several in­cumbents who since retired from service with their entitlements accordingly computed, we order that such cases would not be reopened on the basis of this verdict. In other words, cases where departmental orders securing se­niority even on such inter-school transfers have attained finality and no challenge thereto has been made before any judicial forum as on date as well as cases finally determined by a Court of law sustaining such seniority the same would not be reopened on the basis of this verdict. 74. To reiterate, this adjudication has been made without reference to any particular fact situation and would be limited to the incum­bents of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service and at all relevant times governed by the provisions of the two Rules dealt with as above. The reference is answered accordingly. We leave the parties to bear their own costs.