JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. N. Barua, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Deka, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department. Although Mr. D. Das, learned senior counsel and Ms. R. Gogoi, learned counsel have been shown to have appeared for the respondent No.5 and although the names of Mr. Das have been reflected in the cause list, none has appeared for the respondent No.5. The matter was earlier heard on 27.04.2017 and has again taken up today, but in spite of the same, none has appeared for the respondent No.5. 2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Kathalguri High School, Tinsukia on 03.05.1989 and thereafter she was transferred to Sankardev Seminary High School on 03.08.1989 and since then she has been discharging her duties in the said school till date. It is stated that the respondent No.5 was transferred from Rajabahar High School on 14.09.1994 in her own grade and scale of pay and in the order of transfer, it was clearly reflected that the respondent No.5 cannot claim seniority over the existing staff of the Sankardev Seminary High School as because she was transferred to the Sankardev Seminary High School on her own request. By the order dated 10.07.2012, the respondent No.5 had been promoted to the post of Assistant Headmistress of the Sankardev Seminary High School, Jorhat on the recommendation of the Selection Committee. It is stated that the said recommendation had been made by taking into account the seniority of the respondent No.5 in her earlier school at Rajabahar High School. 3. Now for the purpose of being promoted as the Assistant Headmistress of the Sankardev Seminary High School, an issue had arisen as to who between the petitioner and the respondent No.5 is senior in service. Although the date of appointment of the respondent No.5 in the Rajahabar High School is not available, but the record reveals that she received her graduate scale of pay on 01.08.1982. As such, it can be construed that the initial appointment of the respondent No.5 was prior to that of the petitioner, who was appointed on 03.05.1989 and transferred to Sankardev Seminary High School on 03.08.1989. As such, it can be construed that the initial appointment of the respondent No.5 was prior to that of the petitioner, who was appointed on 03.05.1989 and transferred to Sankardev Seminary High School on 03.08.1989. But the issue for determination is that as the respondent No.5 was transferred to the Sankardev Seminary High School, Jorhat by the order dated 14.09.1994 on her own request and on a condition that the said respondent No.5 cannot claim seniority over the existing staff of the Sankardev Seminary High School, whether the said respondent No.5 would be entitled to her earlier service period in the Rajahabar High School for being counted towards her seniority. 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that under the Rules, the relevant criteria for the post of Assistant Headmaster/Headmistress is the school wise seniority. The aforesaid question as to whether a teacher on transfer is entitled to the seniority of her past service on being transferred to another school had been settled by the Full Bench of this Court in its judgment and order dated 21.12.2011 in Jamaluddin Ahmed –versus- State of Assam and others and other related writ petitions, which is reported in 2012 (1) GLT 1 (FB). In the said judgment, it had been held that under the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 1982, an incumbent who is transferred from one school to another is not entitled for the past service in the other school to be counted towards the seniority. Accordingly, in paragraph-73 of the said judgment, it had been held that under the 2003 Rules also the same mandate explicitly enjoying the consequence of loss of past service for seniority of the incumbent is also provided. As a consequence under the law, a teacher who had been transferred from one school to another is not entitled to the past seniority of the school, in which the said teacher had earlier served. 5. Accordingly, in the instant case also, as the respondent No.5 was transferred to the Sankardev Seminary High School, Jorhat by an order dated 19.04.1994, which indicates that she was transferred on her own request, therefore, the respondent No.5 is not entitled with the seniority as regards her past service in the earlier school being Rajabahar High School. 5. Accordingly, in the instant case also, as the respondent No.5 was transferred to the Sankardev Seminary High School, Jorhat by an order dated 19.04.1994, which indicates that she was transferred on her own request, therefore, the respondent No.5 is not entitled with the seniority as regards her past service in the earlier school being Rajabahar High School. Accordingly, the seniority of the respondent No.5 has to be counted from 14.09.1994, on which date she was transferred to the Sankardev Seminary School, Jorhat. Be that as it may, it is noticed that in the transfer order dated 14.09.1994, a specific provision had been incorporated that the respondent No.5 cannot obtain the seniority over the existing staffs of Sanakrdev Seminary High School. The said provision in the order of transfer dated 14.09.1994 had not been assailed by the respondent No.5 in any earlier proceeding and as such, the same has attained its finality. In such view of the matter also, the respondent No.5 is not entitled to count her seniority in the earlier school and her seniority in the Sankardev Seminary High School is to be counted on and from 14.09.1994. 6. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed and the order of promotion dated 10.07.2012, by which the Selection Committee had recommended the respondent No.5 for promotion to the post of Assistant Headmistress, which was apparently made by taking into consideration the seniority of the respondent No.5 in her earlier school, is therefore, not sustainable. 7. The respondent authorities are directed to take a fresh decision on the matter by taking into consideration that the respondent No.5 would be entitled to seniority only from 14.09.1994. The aforesaid exercise of taking a fresh decision be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment and order. In terms of the above, the writ petition stands disposed of.