Heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. None has appeared for the official respondents. I have also heard Mr. A.M. Bujarbarua, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 2. The petitioner presently serving in Assistant Teacher with Graduate Scale of Pay of B.P.B. Memorial H.S. School, Sonari in the district of Sibsagar is aggrieved by Annexure-I order dated 30.1.2012 issued by the Director of Secondary Education Assam allowing the respondent No. 4 to hold the charge of the Principal of the school in addition to his normal duties as Subject Teacher under FR 49(C). The arrangement has been made in view retirement of the incumbent principal in charge on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.11.2012. 3. There is no dispute that in the normal circumstances, senior most teacher of the school irrespective of whether he belongs to graduate cadre or post graduate cadre is required to be given the charge the principal in absence of any regular principal. The question for determination is as to whether the petiti0ner is senior to the respondent No. 4 entitling him to hold the charge of the principal. 4. The petitioner was initially appointed on 12.5.1976 by the Managing Committee of the School. He was appointed as Elective Subject Teacher in the department of Zoology with effect from 24.5.1976. Be it stated here that the school was not provincialised at that point of time. Be it also stated here that the petitioner was not qualified to be appointed as Subject Teacher in Zoology as she did not have Masters degree in Zoology. As indicated in the order, such appointment was till such time the post was filled up by an M.Sc. (Zoology). 5. The school was provincialised in 1977. Thereafter the petitioner was appointed again as Assistant Teacher in the graduate scale of pay. She was so appointed against a vacant post and pursuant to the approval of the Directorate of Public Instruction. The said order is dated 23.4.1983 and was issued by the Inspector of Schools, Sibsagar District Circle, Jorhat. The services of the petitioner along with some others was confirmed vide order dated 23.12.2011 (Annexure-C) from the date of their joining against the sanctioned post vide Government order dated 17.10.1977 and retained permanently vide Government order dated 29.6.1988. 6. The said order is dated 23.4.1983 and was issued by the Inspector of Schools, Sibsagar District Circle, Jorhat. The services of the petitioner along with some others was confirmed vide order dated 23.12.2011 (Annexure-C) from the date of their joining against the sanctioned post vide Government order dated 17.10.1977 and retained permanently vide Government order dated 29.6.1988. 6. As against the aforesaid position relating to service of the petitioner the respondent No. 4 was first appointed as Assistant Teacher in the graduate scale of pay on adhoc basis on 12.8.1983. Thereafter pursuant to a selection, he was appointed as Subject Teacher with effect from 12.11.1986. 7. If we go by the aforesaid respective dates of appointment, admittedly the petitioner is senior to the respondent No. 4. However, it is the stand of the respondent No. 4 that the petitioner having not been appointed to the service pursuant to any regular selection, irrespective of confirmation of her service by the Annexure-C order dated 23.11.2011 from the date of initial appointment/joining, the petitioner cannot count her seniority from the date of appointment vide Annexure-B order dated 23.4.1983. 8. While Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the sonority of the petitioner is counted from 23.4.1983 and not from the initial date of joining on 17.5.1976, then also she would rank senior to the respondent No. 4, who joined on 12.1.1986. On the other had, Mr. Bujarbaruah, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4 submits that since the petitioner was never appointed on regular basis she cannot get seniority irrespective of continuation of her service. 9. The petitioner has annexed Annexure-E series statements of particulars of the teaching staff of the school to show that in the graduate cadre she is senior most teacher in the school. As noted above, although the post of Subject Teacher is in a higher cadre than that to the post of Assistant Teacher in graduate cadre, but as per the provisions of the rules a regular promotion to the post of Principal can be made by selection taking both the cadres as feeder cadre. Only difference is in respect of teaching experience. While in case of Subject Teacher the required experience is 15 years, in case of graduate teacher, the required teaching experience is 17 years. 10. Only difference is in respect of teaching experience. While in case of Subject Teacher the required experience is 15 years, in case of graduate teacher, the required teaching experience is 17 years. 10. The appointment of the petitioner way back in 1983 and to be precise on 23.4.1983 is not under challenge in this proceeding. By the said order she was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the graduate scale of pay and the order was issued by the Inspector of Schools Sibsagar District Circle, Jorhat. Her service was confirmed by Annexure-C order dated 23.12.2011 from the date of her initial appointment and joining. This order is also not under challenge. As noted above, in Annexure-A series in the statement of teaching staff, the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 1 in the category of Graduate Teacher. However, seniority list in respect of Subject Teacher was drawn separately in which the name of the respondent No. 4 appears. 11. The petitioner was initially appointed in 1976 by the Managing Committee of the school. In that relevant point of time such appointment could be made by the Managing Committee of the school. Although the petitioner was not qualified to hold the post of Subject Teacher but she was appointed considering the need of the school, but the same was subject to the condition that the post would be filled by M.Sc. (Zoology). 12. There is some dispute as to whether the petitioner continued in her service after provincialisation of the school in 1977. Althoug by Annexure-4 her services was dispensed with, but the order was later on withdrawn. 13. Be that as it may, there is no dispute that the petitioner was appointed by Annexure-B order dated 23.4.1983. She has been continuing in her service on that basis and by now has completed about 29 years of service. Her service was confirmed with effect from her date of joining. The order of confirmation was issued on 23.12.2011. As pre the provision of Rule 13 of the Assam Secondary (Provincialisation) Service Rules 1982, 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 and c) date of birth. 14. The order of confirmation was issued on 23.12.2011. As pre the provision of Rule 13 of the Assam Secondary (Provincialisation) Service Rules 1982, 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 and c) date of birth. 14. The petitioner having been appointed by Annexure-B order dated 24.3.1983 and her service also having been confirmed by Annexure-C order dated 23.12.2011 from the date of joining in the post that was sanctioned way back in 1977 (17.10.1977), she would get seniority from the said date. 15. In view of the above finding, Annexure-I order dated 30.1.2012 stands set aside and quashed and the Director of Secondary Education is directed to issue appropriate order immediately towards conferring the in-charge principalship to the petitioner. 16. The writ petition is allowed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. _____________