S.C. Das, J;- In this writ petition, the petitioner chal­lenged the appointment of respondent (here­under mentioned as 'R') No.7 as Principal by R 5 on 23.10.10 which was subsequently approved by R-4 vide Office memo No. SDG/MC/DF-26/2010 dated 02.03.11 (An-nexure-7 to the writ petition). The petitioner also challenged the order No. SSS/MC-Secy/F-07/2010/93dated 06.04.11 issued by R 6 reverting/demoting the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher (hereunder men­tioned as AT) from the post of Vice Principal (hereunder mentioned as VP). 2. I have heard the learned Advocate Ms. A. Paul for the writ petitioner. Also heard learned senior GA. Mr. N. D. Chullai for respondent Nos. 1,2,3 & 4, learned Advo­cate Mr. R. K.ar for respondent Nos. 5 & 6 and Mr. S .G Momin, learned counsel for re­spondent No. 7. Brief pleadings of the parties: 3.1. It is interalia stated by the petitioner that he was appointed as AT on 12.04.86 in Selsella Higher Secondary School, Tura, which was previously named as Selsella Defi­cit Secondary School, at the time when he was appointed and the appointment letter has been marked as Annexure (hereunder men­tioned as' A')-1. 3.2. He has/had been performing his du­ties with all sincerity and devotion and the authority being satisfied, appointed him as VP of the Selsella Higher Secondary School (hereunder mentioned as' School'), Tura on 13.08.05. A copy of the resolution of the Managing Committee (hereunder mentioned as MC) dated 13.08.05, annexed as A-2 to the writ petition. 3.3. R-7 was also appointed as AT on 02.06.90 and he was also serving in the same capacity from that day (A-3). 3.4 The petitioner passed MA in English from North Eastern Hill University (NEHU), Tura Campus, in the year 2000 and also com­pleted the orientation course by the Centre of Cultural Research and Training. He enrolled for B.Ed pro gramme conducted by IGNOU and completed First Year. Copies of mark sheet has been annexed as A-4 series to the writ petition. 3.5 One K.K. Pathak, Principal of the School retired on 31.03.10 and thereafter another Abu Malik Sheikh was principal in-charge of the school w.e.f. 01.04.10 and he continued till 11.12.10, but had to resign from the post due to pressure from R-6 and there­after the post of Principal is lying vacant. 3.5 One K.K. Pathak, Principal of the School retired on 31.03.10 and thereafter another Abu Malik Sheikh was principal in-charge of the school w.e.f. 01.04.10 and he continued till 11.12.10, but had to resign from the post due to pressure from R-6 and there­after the post of Principal is lying vacant. There is no advertisement inviting application for filling up of the post as per provision prescribed in Rule 5 of the amended Assam Aided High and Higher Secondary School Employees Rule, 1965 (hereunder mentioned as 'Rules, 1965'). Violating all the provisions of the said Rule, R-7 is appointed as Princi­pal on 23.02.10 by R-5. 3.6 Immediately thereafter the petitioner submitted representation to R-3 and R-4 seeking redressal in respect of appointment of R-7 as Principal of the school which was approved by R- 4 vide Memo No. SWG/MC/DF-26/2010 dated 02.03.11 (A-7 to the writ petition). It is further stated that he did not receive any response but received order No. SSS/MC-Secy/F-07/2010.93 issued by R-6 relieving him from the post of VP and reduced him to the original rank of AT with­out assigning any reason (A-8 to the writ pe­tition). 3.7. The petitioner felt highly aggrieved by the Memo dated 02.03.11 and order dated 06.04.11 (A-7 and A-8) and he submitted representation to R-4 seeking redressal of his grievance but received no positive response. The petitioner therefore, submitted that he has been appointed long before appointment of R-7 in the post of AT and that he has also served as VP for more than 5 years and that his service career is without any sort of blem­ish and that he has been deprived of legiti­mate claim of being appointed as Principal of the school. He has also stated that the re­spondents appointed R-7 as Principal illegally an arbitrarily without following the procedure prescribed in Rule 5 of the Rules, 1965. He has further stated that he is holding Master Degree in English and having teaching expe­rience more than R-7 and therefore appoint­ment of R-7 as Principal depriving him is ille­gal, arbitrary and un-constitutional and should be set aside and quashed. He has further stated that he is holding Master Degree in English and having teaching expe­rience more than R-7 and therefore appoint­ment of R-7 as Principal depriving him is ille­gal, arbitrary and un-constitutional and should be set aside and quashed. He has further submitted that he has been relieved from the post of VP and reduced to his original rank as AT without assigning any reason and affording any opportunity of hearing which is violative of principle of natural justice and therefore that order is liable to be set aside and quashed. He has also alleged that the act of the respon­dent is actuated by malafide and as such calls for interference and the respondent illegal and arbitrarily under colourable exercise of power, appointed R-7 as Principal against public in­terest and against settled principle of law. He has therefore prayed for setting aside and quashing the memo dated 02.03.11 and or­der dated 06.04.11 (A-7 and A-8) annexed to the writ petition. 4. On behalf of the respondent Nos. 1,2,3 and 4, R-4 submitted an affidavit-in-oppo-sition inter alia stating in pursuance of letter dated 01.03.11 issued by the Additional Di­rector of School Education and Literacy Tura, he has directed the Secretary of the School to issue appointment/promotion order to R-4 as Head master/Principal of the school by his letter dated 02.03.11. He has enclosed letter of Additional Director dated 01.03.11 and his letter dated 02.03.11 asA-1 andA-2 to his affidavit-in-opposition. It is further stated that both the petitioner and R-7 claimed for the post of Principal vide their letter dated 10.02.11 and24.02.2011 and he sought for clarification from Additional Director of School Education and Literacy enclosing all the aca­demic certificates of both the teachers and the Additional Director of School Education and Literacy(R-3) has given her clarification for appointment of R-7 as Principal for the reasons that R-7 has done Bachelor of Arts (B .A) before the petitioner and that R-7 also had B.Ed degree and based on the clarifica­tion given by R-3, he has given instruction to the Secretary of the school to appoint R-7 as Principal. It is also stated that the petitioner claimed to have passed M .A. in English from NEHU, Tura Campus. It is also stated that the petitioner claimed to have passed M .A. in English from NEHU, Tura Campus. The mark sheets pro­duced by him before this Court is not show­ing that he has passed MA and to avoid con­fusion, he has written a letter dated 21.06.11 to Deputy Registrar (Examination), NEHU, Tura but the reply of the Deputy Registrar is waiting. It is also stated that there is no post of VP in the unamalgamated Government Secondary School and such post is only avail­able in amalgamated secondary school and as such the claim of the petitioner to the post of VP is not justified. Finally it is stated that R-7 is more qualified for the post of Principal then the petitioner and accordingly R-7 has been appointed as Principal as per the rec­ommendation/clarification made by the R-3. The writ petition therefore is not maintainable and laible to be dismissed. 5. On behalf of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, an affidavit-in-opposition is submitted by R-6 contending interlaid that there was noth­ing wrong done by the respondents as the appointment/promotion to the post of Princi­pal of R-7 is only as per direction of the Edu­cation Department of the Government of Meghalaya. It is also stated that the MC des­ignated the petitioner as VP of the school but such designation is not approved/sanctioned by the Inspector of School (I.S.) on the ground that it is an un-amalgamated school and there exist no post of VP and therefore the petitioner was accommodated in his origi­nal post which was not at all demotion in rank. It is further stated that the claim of the peti­tioner that he has passed MA in English, is shrouded with suspicion as the mark sheet enclosed as R-4 series to the writ petition was contrary to that of the mark sheet submitted to the Principal (A-1 to A-V to the affidavit in opposition) and therefore, the Principal of the School on 31.05.11 requested the Edu­cation Department to cause an inquiry into the same. It is also stated that R-7 is better qualified to be promoted as Principal as he was having with B.Ed degree, whereas the petitioner only appeared in the first year of B. Ed. course and therefore the petitioner was not having with requisite qualification. It is also stated that R-7 is better qualified to be promoted as Principal as he was having with B.Ed degree, whereas the petitioner only appeared in the first year of B. Ed. course and therefore the petitioner was not having with requisite qualification. In re­gard to seniority the matter was brought to the notice of R-4 Inspector of school and he directed considering the qualification and se­niority, R-7 to be promoted to the post of Principal of the school and accordingly the order is issued. The representations submit­ted by the petitioner are rightly ignored as he is not entitled to any relief as claimed. The respondents therefore prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. R-7 also contended the case by filing counter affidavit/affidavit-in-opposition inter alia supporting the action taken by the R-1 to R-6 and further stated that the post of Princi­pal is filled up by way of promotion accord­ing to law and that the M. A. degree claimed by the petitioner is shrouded with suspicion for which a clarification has been sought. It is also stated that there is no post of VP and the petitioners appointment in the post VP was in a non-existing post and therefore he is rightly reverted to the original post of AT and there is no wrong in it. The entire process for ap­pointment/promotion to the post of Principal is according to law and there is no violation of principles of natural justice and therefore he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. Facts admitted/undisputed:- (a) The petitioner was appointed on 12.04.86 as AT in Selsella Deficit Second­ary School which subsequently became Selsella Higher Secondary School, Tura (A-1 to the writ petition). (b) R-7 was appointed as AT on 02.06.1990 (A-3 to the writ petition). (c) Petitioner was appointed as VP on 13.08.05 by are solution of MC (A-2 to the writ petition). (d) R-7 was appointed on 23.10.10 as Principal in the school by R-5 and that was approved by R-4 vide memo dated 02.03.11 (A-7). (e) Vide Memo dated 06.04.11, R-6 reduced the petitioner from the post of VP to the post of AT (A-8 to the writ peti­tion), 8. Points for decision:- (a) Whether appointment/promotion of R-7 as Principal is justified and was ac­cording to law? (e) Vide Memo dated 06.04.11, R-6 reduced the petitioner from the post of VP to the post of AT (A-8 to the writ peti­tion), 8. Points for decision:- (a) Whether appointment/promotion of R-7 as Principal is justified and was ac­cording to law? (b) Whether the order dated 06.04.11 reverting the petitioner to the post of AT from the post of VP is violative of the prin­cipal of natural justice. (c) Whether the Memo dated 02.03.11 (A-7 to the writ petition) and order dated 06.04.11 (A-8 to the writ petition) are li­able to be set aside and quashed? 9. Decision and reasons for decision:-Learned Advocate Ms. A, Paul strenuously argued that the appointment of R-7 as Prin­cipal is completely illegal, arbitrary and un­constitutional. The respondents given go-by to the provision prescribed in the Rules and also to the norms and ethics. Learned coun­sel has drawn my attention to Rule 4 and Rule 5 of the Rules, 1965. Rule-4 prescribes the method of recruitment to the post of Head­master/Headmistress. Sub Rule (i) of Rule 4 pre­scribes thus:- "4. Method of recruitment (1) Headmasters/Headmistresses: (i) there shall be a State Selection Board consisting of the following viz: (a) Director of Public Instruction, Assam-Chairman (b) Additional Director of Public Instruc­tion, Assam-Secretary. (c) Inspectors of Schools concerned-Members (d) Two educationists to be nominated by the Government-Members. (ii) The Director of Public Instruction, Assam, shall ascertain from various institutions con­cerned well ahead of each academic year va­cancies that are likely to occur during the year and advertise in at least two newspapers and also in the Assam Gazette and forward to the Selection Board the applications received to­gether with all relevant records indicating at the same time the number of vacancies and names of the institutions involved. (iii) The Selection Board shall after interview prepare a list of candidates In order of prefer­ence and shall forward the list so prepared to the Managing Committee of the Schools con­cerned. (iv) The Managing Committee shall make appointments after due verification and with prior approved of the Inspector of Schools con­cerned." Rule 5 prescribes essential academic and other qualifications for appointment to the post of Headmasters/Headmistress and Clause (i) of Rule 5 prescribes thus: "Academic and other qualifications: (i) Headmasters/Headmistresses; A candidate shall hold a B.T or Master's De­gree in Arts, Science or Commerce and shall have at least ten years' teaching experience. The edu­cational qualification may be relaxed to the Bach­elors1 degree in Arts, Science or Commerce if: (a) the Headmasters and Headmis­tresses are already confirmed in their ser­vices with due approval of the Inspector of Schools concerned on or before 1st October 1956: provided that such Headmasters/Head­mistresses have put in at least ten years' service as a teacher in a recognised Sec­ondary School: (b) the candidates have put in at least 15 years' service as teacher in recognised Secondary Schools including 5 years as an Assistant Headmaster or Headmistress or in both capacities or at least 20 years' expe­rience as a teacher in recognised Second­ary School. In case of women candidates, however, the candidates may have only 10 years' total teaching experience in Second­ary Schools." Referring to the comments at Page 162 of "Meghalaya Education Code", learned coun­sel Ms. Paul has submitted that the provision of the amended Assam Aided High and Higher Secondary School Employees Rules, 1965 was adopted by State of Meghalaya by issuing necessary notification under North Eastern Areas (Reorganisation) Act, 1971. The relevant paragraph may be quoted thus: "By notification No. ESS-140/59 dated 9th March 1961 the following set of Rules were is­sued by the Government of Assam, viz.; Assam Aided College Employees Rules (960, Assam Aided High and Higher Secondary School Em­ployees Rules, 1960, Assam Aided Middle En­glish Schools Teachers Rules, 1960. The above Rules came into force with effect from 15th February 1961. The Assam Aided High and Higher Secondary School Employees Rules, 1960 was amended and the Government of Assam by notification No. ESS-58/64/11 dated 1st Decem­ber 1965 notified the Amended Assam Aided High and Higher Secondary School Employees Rules, 1965 notified the Amended Assam Aided High and Higher Secondary School Employees Rules, 1965, which are incorporated below. The above rules are applicable in the State of Meghalaya." To substantiate, her argument, learned counsel also referred a case law of this Court reported in (1987) 1 GLR 55 (Rev, Fr. Paul Petta Vs. Director of Public Instruction, Government of Meghalaya & Ors. In Para 15 of the said reported case, we find that the Assam Rule was applied in the State of Meghalaya and was followed by the State. Paul Petta Vs. Director of Public Instruction, Government of Meghalaya & Ors. In Para 15 of the said reported case, we find that the Assam Rule was applied in the State of Meghalaya and was followed by the State. Respondents failed to controvert the ar­gument advanced by the learned counsel of the petitioner regarding applicabilry of the provisions of Rule, 1965 in respect of method of recruitment and academic qualification for appointment to the post of Headmasters/Headmistress of the Higher Secondary School. It is amply clear that while appoint­ing R-7 as principal of the School, respon­dents did not at all follow the provisions of Rule 4 & Rule 5 of the Rules of 1965 and hence the impugned memo of appointment suffer from legal infirmity and thus can to sur­vive. 10. Learned counsel Ms. A. Paul has fur­ther submitted that the petitioner was ap­pointed on 12.04.86 whereas R-7 was ap­pointed on 02.06,90 i.e. after about 5 years of the appointment of the petitioner. She has also contended that the petitioner was ap­pointed as VC on 13.08.05 and he has dis­charged his duties as VP efficiently and to the satisfaction of the authority and there is no blemish in his service career. She has further submitted that the requisite qualification for appointment to the post of Headmaster/Head­mistress is B. T. or Master Degree in Arts, Science or Commerce (emphasis supplied) and since the petitioner was having with Mas­ter Degree in English and was senior to R-7 and also holding Bachelor Degree and served as VP, he is better qualified to be appointed as Principal above R-7. She has therefore prayed for setting aside and quashing the im­pugned order dated 02.03.11. 11. On the other hand learned senior G A. and learned Advocate Mr. R. Kar, while could not dispute the provision prescribed in Rule 4 and Rule 5 of the Rules, 1965, have sub­mitted that R-7 was better qualified to be appointed as Principal since he was having with B.Ed degree. They have contended that mark sheet of Master Degree submitted by the petitioner and annexed with the writ peti­tion (A-4 series) is showing that he could not pass Master Degree whereas the mark sheet 3 he submitted in the school, which are annexed as A-I to A-V series to the affidavit-in-op­position, submitted by respondent Nos. They have contended that mark sheet of Master Degree submitted by the petitioner and annexed with the writ peti­tion (A-4 series) is showing that he could not pass Master Degree whereas the mark sheet 3 he submitted in the school, which are annexed as A-I to A-V series to the affidavit-in-op­position, submitted by respondent Nos. 5 and 6 are showing that he has passed M.A. in English and therefore the claim of the peti­tioner that he is holding M.A. degree in En­glish is shrouded with suspicion for which let­ter has been written to the authority of NEHU, seeking clarification but such clarification is yet to be received. R-5 & R-6 in their counter affidavit contended that both the petitioner and R-7 exerted their claim for the post of Princi­pal and they forwarded the cl aim with all their certificates to the Additional Director of School Education and Literacy (R-3) seek­ing clarification. In the affidavit-in-opposition submitted by R-4, it has been categorically stated that in response to the clarification sought to R-3, he (R-4) has been informed by R-3 that respondent No. 7 was found eli­gible as he passed B A in the year 1997 and the petitioner passed B A in the year, 1998 and that R-7 was having with B.Ed degree of the year, 2002, whereas petitioner only en­rolled in B.Ed programme. The letter of R-3 dated 01.03.11 addressed to R-4 on the ba­sis of which impugned letter dated 02.03.11 was issued by R-4 has been annexed as A-l to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by respon­dent Nos. 1,2,3 and 4 and it shows that R-3 has taken an arbitrary decision regarding qualification and eligibility of the petitioner and R-7, for the post of Principal and to her whims giving good-bye to the provisions of Rules, 1965 arrived at a conclusion that R-7 was eligible for the post of Principal. Letter dated 01.03.11 (A-1, to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondents) shows that at the time of entry in the service both the petitioner and R-7 were having with qualification P.U. (Arts) pass and the petitioner done his graduation in the year, 1998 and R-7 done his graduation in the year, 1997 and only considering the fact that R-7 done his graduation before the peti­tioner, the respondents decided to promote R-7 to the post of Principal. They have to­tally ignored the service experience of the petitioner and also the Master Degree of the petitioner. The petitioner all along claimed that he had done Master Degree in English. R-5 and R-6 submitted the copies of the mark sheets submitted by the petitioner which shows that he has passed Master Degree in English. The copies of the mark sheets sub­mitted by the petitioner with the writ petition marked as A-4 series reflecting 'x' in the col­umn (Grand Total) and referring to it learned counsel of the respondents submitted that the petitioner failed in Master Degree examina­tion. On the contrary, learned counsel Ms. A. Paul has submitted that the petitioner submit­ted a rejoinder affidavit and clarified the po­sition that the mark sheets in original were destroyed in natural calamities, i.e. floods that took place in Garo Hills and copies of marksheets which the petitioner submitted was duplicate marksheet obtained later on and the V mark in the column (grand total) does not indicate that the petitioner failed and the authority may get it inquired and clarified. On perusal of Ext.-4 series annexed to the writ petition, I find that those were duplicate mark sheets issued on different dates whereas, the mark sheets annexed as A-I to A-IV to the counter affidavit of R-5 and R-6 shows that those copies were original mark sheets sub­mitted by the petitioner to the school author­ity. So apparently I find no ambiguity in the contention of the petitioner that he has passed M.A. examination in English. If the conten­tion of the petitioner regarding his Master degree is found to be false, it will not only amount mis-conduct but will constitute a criminal offence and for deciding the writ pe­tition, I find nothing to suspect the claim of the petitioner that he has been holding the Master Degree and that has already been taken into consideration by the Respondent on the submission of the original mark sheets before them. In view of the provisions pre­scribed in Rule 5 of the Rules 1965, the peti­tioner is also eligible to be considered for the post of Principal while holding the Master degree and R-7 could not be considered as better qualified than the petitioner. In view of the provisions pre­scribed in Rule 5 of the Rules 1965, the peti­tioner is also eligible to be considered for the post of Principal while holding the Master degree and R-7 could not be considered as better qualified than the petitioner. There remains no confusion that the ap­pointment of R-7 to the post of Principal is illegal and arbitrary and in total violation of the provision of the Rules and therefore liable to be interfered by this Court. Consequently the appointment of R-7 to the post of Princi­pal as made by R-5 on 23.10.10 which was subsequently approved/affirmed by R-4 vide impugned Memo dated 02.03.1 1(A-7) to the writ petition is liable to be set aside and quashed. 12. The other issue challenged in this writ petition is that of reverting of the petitioner to the post of AT from the post of VC without assigning him any reason and without afford­ing any opportunity of hearing. Admittedly the petitioner was appointed as VP on 13.08.05 and he discharged his duties as VP till the date of his reverting to the post of AT by impugned order dated 06.04.11. It is contended by the learned counsel of the respondents that there was no post of VP in un-amalgamated Gov­ernment Secondary School and therefore he was adjusted in the post of AF. It is not un­derstood how the respondents posted the petitioner in the post of VP if there was no such post and could realise that there was no such post only when the post of Principal was denied to him and he made representation against such denial which smells otherwise then what the respondents have agitated. Any way the respondents, in the circumstances, if there was no such posts approved by the appropriate authority could inform him and afford him an opportunity of hearing. The respondents did not travel to that extent and straightway reverted the petitioner to the post of AT after 5 years of his service which is vio-lative to the principle of "audi alterem partem'', therefore liable to be interfered by this Court. 13. Accordingly impugned office Memo dated 02.03.2011 (A-7 to the writ petition) and the impugned order dated 06.04.2011 (A-8 to the writ petition) are set aside and quashed and the writ petition is accordingly allowed. 14. The parties are to bear their own costs.