JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Manojit Bhuyan, J. Heard Mr. B.Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. N.J. Khataniar, learned counsel representing respondent nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Mr. A. Hussain, learned counsel represents respondent no.6. 2. By order dated 18.6.1993 issued under the hand of the Deputy Inspector Schools, Bilasipara, the petitioner was appointed as a Stipendiary Teacher at a monthly stipend of Rs. 900/-. The condition precedent for being entitled to regular time scale of pay was that the petitioner will have to undergo Basic Training. Pursuant to the said appointment order, the petitioner joined as Stipendiary Teacher at Arkati L.P. School on 25.6.1993. Immediately thereafter the petitioner was taken out of service by order dated 10.7.1993. However, he was reinstated in service on 14.9.1995 as per resolution adopted by the Sub-Division Level Advisory Board. In terms of the said order of reinstatement, the petitioner joined service on 15.9.1995. The petitioner has also undergone basic training and thereafter he was granted regular time scale of pay w.e.f. 11.1.2001. 3. In so far as the private respondent no.6 is concerned, she was also appointed on 18.6.1993 and joined service as Stipendiary Teacher on 21.6.1993. As in the case of the petitioner, she was also taken out of service and thereafter reinstated and she joined again on 11.9.1995. After completion of the basic training she was granted regular time scale of pay w.e.f. 12.6.2001. 4. The petitioner is aggrieved of the Verification Report submitted by the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Bilasipara, whereby the said private respondent no.6 was held to be senior-most Mistress of the School with the observation that she should be allowed to function as in-charge Headmistress. The petitioner is also aggrieved of the order dated 3.2.2012 issued under the order of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Bilasipara, whereby the said private respondent no.6 was allowed to act as in-charge Headmistress at 1460 No. Bogribari Bengali L.P. School. Pertinent to mention that on reinstatement, the petitioner and the respondent no.6 is discharging duties at the said 1460 No. Bogribari Bengali L.P. School. 5. Mr. B. Sinha, learned counsel submits that the determination of the private respondent no.6 as senior is in super-session of the right of the petitioner. Pertinent to mention that on reinstatement, the petitioner and the respondent no.6 is discharging duties at the said 1460 No. Bogribari Bengali L.P. School. 5. Mr. B. Sinha, learned counsel submits that the determination of the private respondent no.6 as senior is in super-session of the right of the petitioner. The basic contention is that the petitioner after having completed Junior Basic Training was granted regular time scale of pay w.e.f. 11.1.2001 whereas private respondent no.6 was granted regular time scale of pay with effect from 12.6.2001. It is the contention of the petitioner that notwithstanding the fact that the private respondent no.6 had joined earlier as a Stipendiary Teacher and/or had also joined earlier on reinstatement, the fact remains that she was granted regular time scale of pay earlier than the private respondent no.6. As such, she is senior to the private respondent no.6. It is urged that in the cadre of Assistant Teacher pursuant to grant of regular time scale of pay, the petitioner had joined earlier than the said respondent no.6. To this end, Mr. B. Sinha places reliance in the case of Arun Chandra Neog v. State of Assam and ors. reported in 2000(2) GLT 366. 6. Mr. A. Hussain, learned counsel, representing respondent no.6 relies upon the statements and averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition so filed. Mr. Hussain contends that inter-se seniority between the two has to be counted with regard to the length of service and the initial date of appointment as records would show. Mr. Hussain contends, the respondent no.6 joined as Stipendiary Teacher on 21.6.1993 i.e. 4 days earlier than the writ petitioner. Also upon re-instatement she joined on 11.9.1995 i.e. 4 days prior to the petitioner. On this count alone, Mr. Hussain submits that she is senior to the petitioner and as such the Verification Report of the Inspector of Schools, Bilasipara as well as the order dated 3.2.2012 allowing her to act as in-charge Headmistress does not suffer from any infirmity. Mr. Hussain also places reliance in the case of D.P. Das v. Union of India and ors, reported in (2011) 8 SCC 115 to say that in the absence of a provision ordinarily the length of service should be taken into account. 7. Mr. Mr. Hussain also places reliance in the case of D.P. Das v. Union of India and ors, reported in (2011) 8 SCC 115 to say that in the absence of a provision ordinarily the length of service should be taken into account. 7. Mr. N.J. Khataniar, learned counsel representing the Education (Elementary) Department submits that the criteria for fixing inter-se seniority is not dependent upon the date of grant of regular time scale of pay. According to Mr. Khataniar, although the petitioner had completed junior basic training earlier than the respondent no.6, the same cannot be construed that the petitioner is senior to the respondent no.6. In this connection Mr. Khataniar submits that the Junior Basic Training is only for the purpose of receiving regular scale of pay and nothing beyond. For all intents and purposes it is contended that seniority has to be counted from the date of joining. At this stage, Mr. Khataniar also submits that sending a teacher to undergo basic training is at the prerogative of the employer. 8. The submissions of the learned counsel for the parties have been taken note of. Without any manner of doubt and in absence of any statutory provisions, seniority has to be ordinarily counted having regard to the length of service. This is the ratio laid down in the case of D.P. Das v. Union of India (supra). On the other hand, the case law cited by Mr. B. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner i.e. Arun Chandra Neog v. State of Assam (supra) is also taken note of. That was a case where the subject matter was with regard to inter-se seniority between two teachers who belong to the graduate rank and graduate scale of pay. The private respondent therein was deemed to be senior on account of the fact that he was given graduate scale of pay much earlier than the writ petitioner, although the writ petitioner had joined the Institution prior to the respondent no.6. 9. The issue now boils down to the fact whether there are any express provisions under the Rules i.e. Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Service and Conduct Rules, 1981 laying down the procedure for determining inter se seniority of teachers. Rule 3(iii) of the aforesaid Rules provide that the inter se seniority of the teachers belonging to a cadre/class/grade shall be determined as per existing Government Rules. In this connection Mr. Rule 3(iii) of the aforesaid Rules provide that the inter se seniority of the teachers belonging to a cadre/class/grade shall be determined as per existing Government Rules. In this connection Mr. B. Sinha refers to the Hand Book of General Circulars of the Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Assam, whereby under ABP 161/60/289 dated 20.12.1967 the guiding principles for fixing inter se seniority in the Assam Ministerial District Establishment was laid down. Relying upon the said Circular, Mr. B. Sinha submits that the inter se seniority should normally be followed as per the date of appointment in that particular cadre provided that the persons concerned have joined the appointment within 15 days of the receipt of the order of appointment or within the extended period as envisaged in the Service Rules. 10. At the very outset, it is stated that the said Circular dated 20.12.1967 providing the guiding principles in respect of employees in the Assam Ministerial District Establishment is not relevant for the purpose of determining inter se seniority of teachers, as in the present case. It therefore follows that the provisions under the Assam Education (Provincialisation) Service and Conduct Rules, 1981 do not lay down any criteria of determining inter-se seniority on the basis of the date of grant of regular time scale of pay. Taking a cue from the case of D.P. Das v. Union of India (supra), the inter se seniority of teachers in the absence of any express provisions has to be counted on the basis of length of service. 11. In so far as the case of Arun Chandra Neog v. State of Assam (supra) is concerned, the same do not come to the aid of the petitioner. The reason being that in so far as teachers governed under the Assam Secondary Education (provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003 is concerned, Rule 14 (2) thereof makes it abundantly clear that the seniority has to be determined from the date of receiving graduate scale as per Rule 24 (2). Under the said Rule of 2003, there is an express provision of determining inter se seniority, which has to be on the basis of the date of receiving graduate scale. In so far as the present case is concerned, there is no express provision of determining seniority on the basis of the date of receipt of regular time scale of pay. 12. In so far as the present case is concerned, there is no express provision of determining seniority on the basis of the date of receipt of regular time scale of pay. 12. From the discussions above, it is held that the report of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, holding the private respondent no.6 as senior on the basis of length of service and/or date of initial joining cannot be held to be illegal. As such, there being no infirmity in the Verification Report of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Bilasipara, the conclusion is that this writ petition must fail. Also, the order dated 3.2.2012 allowing the private respondent no.6 to act as in-charge Headmistress of the school does not suffer any infirmity. 13. In view of the above, this writ petition stands dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.