JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Shri R.K. Deepak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri N. Surendrajit, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent and Shri Y. Ashang, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 29-02-2016 by which the private respondent has been appointed as the in-charge Principal, Government Polytechnic, Takyelpat. 3.1 According to the petitioner, he is a B.E. in Mechanical and M.E. in Automobile Engineering and is presently working as Lecturer (SG) in the Mechanical Department of the Government Polytechnic, Takyelpat. Although the petitioner was initially appointed as Lecturer on ad-hoc basis on 15-07-1982, his ad-hoc service was regularized on 24-05-1986. 3.2 As per the Inter-se Seniority List of Lecturers (Technical/Non-Technical), Forman (Electrical/Mechanical) of the Government Polytechnic circulated by the Principal vide notice dated 29-12-2000, the petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 11 while the private respondent was placed at Sl. No. 24. 3.3 The method of recruitment for the post of Principal, Government Polytechnic is governed by the rules called the Technical Education Department, Manipur (Principal, Government Polytechnic) Recruitment Rules, 1998 and in terms of the said rules, the appointment of the Principal, Government Polytechnic is to be made by way of promotion failing which by direct recruitment. The requisite qualification prescribed in the said Recruitment Rules for appointment to the post of Principal, Government Polytechnic is that one ought to be a Lecturer (Selection Grade) possessing Master’s Degree in Engineering/Technology/Technician Education with at least 7 (seven) years regular service in the grade. 3.4 After one Shri Kh. Rajchandra Singh having retired as the Principal, Government Polytechnic on 29-02-2016, the post of the Principal remained vacant and instead of making appointment on regular basis, the State Government issued the impugned order dated 29-02-2016 appointing the private respondent as the in-charge Principal, Government Polytechnic completely ignoring the inter-se seniority list. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has questioned it on the inter-alia grounds that the petitioner who is eligible and is senior to the private respondent has not been considered for appointment as Principal on in-charge basis although it is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that even for appointment on in-charge basis, the seniority is to be taken into account and that while issuing the impugned order, the State respondents have violated the Recruitment Rules. 4. 4. The State respondents have contested the instant writ petition by way of an affidavit-in-opposition wherein it is stated that the Inter-se Seniority List needs to be verified as the same is published by the Principal, Government Polytechnic, who is not the competent authority; that the private respondent has been appointed as in-charge Principal, Government Polytechnic as a stop-gap arrangement due to administrative exigency; that the private respondent is the only person having possessed M.Tech. with Ph.D Degree in interdisciplinary subject as per the norms of eligibility and educational qualifications prescribed by AICTE; that the quality and length of service rendered by the petitioner is concerned, a verification in respect thereof is required and that the appointment of the private respondent as in-charge Principal will not affect the service of the petitioner because he is not eligible for appointment to the post of Principal for want of essential qualification of Ph.D Degree. The private respondent has also contested the instant writ petition taking a similar stand as that of the State respondents and in his affidavit, it has been stated that he has been appointed as Principal In-charge because he is the most competent and most suitable person as per the Recruitment Rules; that the petitioner is serving only as Lecturer (SG) and has no administrative experience in his entire career; that as per the eligibility for recruitment prescribed by the AICTE, Ph.D is an essential qualification for the post of Principal and that the private respondent is the only Lecturer having obtained Ph.D Degree. 5. It is not in dispute that the method of recruitment for the post of Principal, Government Polytechnic is governed by the rules called the Technical Education Department, Manipur (Principal, Government Polytechnic) Recruitment Rules, 1998 wherein it is provided that the appointment as the Principal, Government Polytechnic is to be made by way of promotion failing which by direct recruitment. 5. It is not in dispute that the method of recruitment for the post of Principal, Government Polytechnic is governed by the rules called the Technical Education Department, Manipur (Principal, Government Polytechnic) Recruitment Rules, 1998 wherein it is provided that the appointment as the Principal, Government Polytechnic is to be made by way of promotion failing which by direct recruitment. The column 11 of the said Recruitment Rules is as under: “Promotion: Lecturers Selection Grade posses Master’s Degree in Engineering/ Technology/Technician Education with at least 7 (seven) years regular service in the grade.” Along with the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the State respondents, a copy of the Government Order dated 26-08-2011 has been filed, the para 8 of which provides that the Governor is further pleased to order that the relevant AICTE’s guiding conditions and Fitment tables as applicable shall be followed and the eligibility for recruitment and to move up to the next promotion at every stage shall be subject to fulfilling all requirements and conditions laid down by the AICTE. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not denied the existence of this Government order dated 26-08-2011 and all that he submitted is that the guidelines of the AICTE are ambiguous and some of which are contradictory to each other. The relevant portions of the Notification dated 05-03-2010 as regards the minimum qualification and experience for appointment in respect of the Principal and the Notification dated 04-01-2016 as regards the clarifications are given as under: NOTIFICATION DATED 05-03-2010 Principal Qualification as above for the post of Head of Department and Ph. D in Engineering. OR Qualification as above for the post of Head of Department. Minimum of 10 years relevant experience in teaching/Research/Indus try out of which at least 3 years shall be at the level of Head of Department or equivalent. In case of Architecture, professional practice of 10 years as certified by the Council of Architecture shall also be considered valid. NOTIFICATION DATED 04-01-2016 48 Whether a faculty of Engineering & Technology with minimum 10 years relevant experience in teaching/research out of which 3 years is in the same grade pay (i.e., Rs. 9000) at par with HOD is eligible for the post of Principal in Polytechnic. Yes, provided the person also has an administrative experience of at least 3 years. 64 Whether Ph. 9000) at par with HOD is eligible for the post of Principal in Polytechnic. Yes, provided the person also has an administrative experience of at least 3 years. 64 Whether Ph. D is an essential qualification for the post of Principal in Diploma Level Technical Institutions. Yes. 6. It has been submitted by Shri R.K. Deepak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner being senior to the private respondent, he ought to have been given a chance to work as the in-charge Principal and that since the State respondents having failed to do that, their action appointing the private respondent as the in-charge Principal is unjust, unfair and discriminatory and is contrary to the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court. He has placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of AP & anr. Vs. A.V. Venugopala Rao reported in (1995) 1 SCC 179 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the interim arrangement made by the State Government to keep the senior most in the provisional list of respective divisions who are eligible for promotion to the posts of Executive Engineer as in-charge so as to avoid heart-burning among the officers. He has also relied upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Mangsatabam Imomacha Singh Vs. State of Manipur reported in 2012 (4) GLT 808 wherein the Hon’ble High Court quashed the Government order allowing the private respondent therein, who is junior to the petitioner therein, to hold the post of Chief Engineer on in-charge basis by holding that the law relating to transfer in public employment that as long as a senior officer is available, a junior officer cannot be allowed to hold the charge of a higher post until such post is filled up on a regular basis, is no longer res integra. Shri N. Surendrajit, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent and Shri Y. Ashang, learned Government Advocate have not cited any decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court or any of the High Courts which has taken a contrary view. Admittedly, as per the inter-se seniority list circulated vide notice dated 29-12-2000 by the Principal, Government Polytechnic, the petitioner is senior to the private respondent. Admittedly, as per the inter-se seniority list circulated vide notice dated 29-12-2000 by the Principal, Government Polytechnic, the petitioner is senior to the private respondent. The only stand of the State Government as regards the inter-se seniority list is that the authenticity thereof is required to be verified as the same is published by the Principal who is not competent to finalise it. On perusal of the said notice dated 29-12-2000, it is clear that only a provisional inter-se seniority list was circulated to all officers concerned inviting objections, if any, from their end. There is no material on record to show that any officer or for that matter, the private respondent has raised any objection thereto and in the absence of any objection being raised by any concerned officer, the inter-se seniority is as good as the final. According to the State Government, it is the Administrative Department of Technical Education which is competent to finalise the seniority list. But the State Government has not come forward with any reason as to why the seniority list has not been finalised for so long, although it was circulated as late as in the year 2000. The non-finalisation of the said inter-se seniority list in time cannot be attributed to the petitioner. 7. In case the issue relating to seniority is the only issue involved herein, the instant writ petition could have been allowed straightway on the basis of the observation made in the preceding para. However, the learned counsels appearing for the respondents have raised some other issues namely (a) the petitioner is not eligible for promotion to the post of the Principal because he does not have three years administrative experience as prescribed in the guidelines of the AICTE and (b) the petitioner does not possess Ph.D degree which is an essential qualification for being appointed on promotion to the post of Principal. As regards issue (a), it has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has fulfilled the requirement with respect to three years administrative experience on the ground that he has already served as the Head of the Department for more than five years and his alternative submission is that even assuming that he is said to have served for two years only as the Head of the Department, his service as Workshop Superintendent and Hostel Superintendent which are equivalent to the Head of the Department could be counted for the purpose of computing the length of experience at the level of the Head of the Department. To substantiate his argument, he has relied upon a copy of the Government order dated 21-04-1998; a copy of the letter dated 21-11-2008 of the Divisional Manager, HMT and a copy of the Norms and Standards for Polytechnic published by the AICTE in the year 1990. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, it is the private respondent who has not fulfilled the qualification in respect of experience at the level of the Head of the Department and the experience that the private respondent had, is not at the level of the Head of the Department. The requirement of three years administrative experience is not there at all in the recruitment rules but is prescribed in the guidelines of the AICTE and in particular, the relevant portions reproduced hereinabove. The qualification as prescribed in the Notification dated 05-03-2010 in respect of Principal is the same qualification as prescribed for the post of Head of the Department and Ph.D in Engineering. There is no dispute as regards the qualification and the dispute is only in respect of experience to be acquired by the Lecturers for being eligible for appointment to the post of the Principal. The requisite experience prescribed in the Notification dated 05-03-2010 is the minimum of 10 years in teaching/research, out of which at least 3 years shall be at the level of the Head of the Department or equivalent. However, in the clarification to a query in respect of the requisite experience, it is stated in the Notification dated 04-01-2016 that the answer is “yes” provided the person also has an administrative experience of at least 3 years. However, in the clarification to a query in respect of the requisite experience, it is stated in the Notification dated 04-01-2016 that the answer is “yes” provided the person also has an administrative experience of at least 3 years. It is not clear as to whether the three years administrative experience mentioned in the clarification shall mean the same as that of three years required at the level of the Head of the Department or not for the reason that it is not clearly so stated. It is unfortunate that the AICTE is neither a party in the writ petition so as to know its stand nor has any clarification been sought for by the State Government from it in this regard. But the fact that the query is answered in the affirmative with the proviso that the person also has an administrative experience of at least 3 years, appears to indicate that the three years administrative experience shall be a separate one in addition to the requirement of having three years experience at the level of the Head of the Department. Coming to the present case, there are no sufficient documents to show that the petitioner has served for at least three years at the level of the Head of the Department except the order dated 21-04-1998 by which it is shown that he has served for two years & a month. Relying upon a copy of the Norms and Standards for Polytechnic published by the AICTE in the year 1990, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that since the Workshop Superintendent and Hostel Superintendent being in the cadre of the Head of the Department, the service rendered by him as the Workshop Superintendent and Hostel Superintendent be counted towards experience at the level of the Head of the Department. But his submission has been countered by the learned counsel appearing for the private respondent contending that the Workshop Superintendent has been treated at par with Lecturers vide Notification dated 05-03-2010 issued by the AICTE. Therefore, on the basis of the materials placed on record, it cannot be said that the petitioner has served at least for three years at the level of the Head of the Department. Therefore, on the basis of the materials placed on record, it cannot be said that the petitioner has served at least for three years at the level of the Head of the Department. Similar is the case with the private respondent for the reason that he has failed to produce material to show that the experience that he had while working as the Deputy Director of the Controller of Technical Education, Manipur, can be said to be at the level of the Head of the Department and in the absence of such material, he can at the most be said to have had the administrative experience but not at the level of the Head of the Department. It is thus seen that both the petitioner and the private respondent have not fulfilled the qualification as regards the experience to be acquired at the level of the Head of the Department. 8. As regards the issue (b), it has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Ph.D degree that the private respondent claims to have possessed, is not the Ph.D in Engineering as prescribed in the Notification dated 05-03-2010 and that in respect of Ph.D acquired from inter-disciplinary Centres/Departments, the BOG has not yet taken any appropriate decision. From the perusal of a copy of the award dated 20-03-2010 issued by the Manipur University, filed by the State respondents along with their affidavit, it is indubitably clear that the private respondent has obtained Ph.D degree in the history subject from the faculty of Social Science, Manipur University and not in Engineering subject. It is common knowledge that the faculty of Social Science, Manipur University cannot confer or award Ph.D degree in Engineering subject without any knowledge in respect thereof. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that BOG has not taken any appropriate decision in respect of Ph.D acquired from inter-disciplinary Centres/Departments is not controverted at all and no material has been placed on record in respect of such a decision by the respondents. Therefore, it can be easily inferred that both the petitioner and the private respondent do not possess the Ph.D degree as prescribed in the said Notification dated 05-03-2010. In other words, both the petitioner and the private respondent are not eligible, for the time being, for appointment as the Principal, Government Polytechnic on regular basis. 9. Therefore, it can be easily inferred that both the petitioner and the private respondent do not possess the Ph.D degree as prescribed in the said Notification dated 05-03-2010. In other words, both the petitioner and the private respondent are not eligible, for the time being, for appointment as the Principal, Government Polytechnic on regular basis. 9. The reasons assigned by the State Government as to why the private respondent was appointed as the in-charge Principal inter-alia are that it was purely a stop gap arrangement due to administrative exigency and the private respondent had possessed M.Tech. degree with Ph.D in inter-disciplinary subject/fields relating to civil engineering, as per norms of eligibility and educational qualification prescribed by AICTE, which is an essential qualification for the post of Principal, Government Polytechnic. The State Government appears to have proceeded on an erroneous assumption that the private respondent is eligible for appointment as the Principal. But in view of what has been observed hereinabove, these reasons are not sustainable in law and accordingly, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. No other relief prayed for by the petitioner can be granted in the matter. However, if the State Government is of the view that on account of administrative exigency, the appointment of a Principal on in-charge basis is indispensable, it is open to it to do so keeping in mind the seniority list, as has been observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court. 10. For the reasons stated herein above, the instant writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above and accordingly, the impugned order dated 29-02-2016 is quashed and set aside. However, it is open to the State respondents to appoint a Lecturer (Selection Grade) as the Principal on in-charge basis in the light of the observations made herein above. There shall be no order as to costs.