JUDGMENT : AM BUJOR BARUA, J. 1. Heard Mr. MU Mahmud, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. N Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the Education Department and Mr. SK Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. 2. The appellant having passed the Higher Secondary examination in the year 1985 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher of Tukura M.E School by the Managing Committee on 02.10.1989. In course of his service as an Assistant Teacher, the appellant also acquired the qualification of Teachers’ Training Examination in the year 2001 from the Bongaigaon Normal School. He was also engaged as CRCC under the Assam Sarba Siksha Abhijan Mission (for short, SSA) on deputation as per the communication dated 24.03.2004. The school in which the appellant was appointed as an Assistant Teacher was provincialised w.e.f. 19.11.1991. In the process, services of the appellant was also provincialised along with 3(three) other teachers of the school. But in the personal details of the teachers of Tukura ME School prepared by the SSA, the appellant was shown to have joined in his post on 01.08.1987. 3. The respondent No.5, on the other hand was the founder teacher of the Tukura ME School and, accordingly, his date of induction as an Assistant Teacher is to be construed to be 07.02.1987. 4. The appellant makes a claim that his personal details prepared by the SSA shows his date of appointment as Assistant Teacher to be 01.08.1987, whereas the personal details prepared in respect of the respondent No.5 also shows the date of appointment to be 01.08.1987. 5. Upon the regular Headmaster of the Tukura ME School having gone on superannuation, the SMC of the School took a resolution dated 28.02.2018 by which the appellant was allowed to be the In-charge Headmaster of the school. The said resolution also provided that as the senior teacher Hamida Khatun had expressed her inability in writing to be the In-charge Headmaster and the respondent No.5 having been placed under suspension by the Government of Assam from 13.10.2008 to 03.03.2015, the SMC took the resolution to allow the appellant to be the In-charge Headmaster. 6. But inspite of such resolution by the SMC, the District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO) Goalpara by the order dated 10.04.2018 had allowed the respondent No.5 to be the In-charge Headmaster of the school for a period of 3(three) months till the regular appointment is made. 6. But inspite of such resolution by the SMC, the District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO) Goalpara by the order dated 10.04.2018 had allowed the respondent No.5 to be the In-charge Headmaster of the school for a period of 3(three) months till the regular appointment is made. The order of 10.04.2018 of the DEEO, Goalpara was assailed by the appellant resulting in WP(C) No.2521/2018. 7. In the writ petition, a stand was taken that earlier also by the order dated 16.09.2011, the appellant being the senior most qualified teacher of Tukura ME School was allowed to be the In-charge Headmaster and he continued to be so till May, 2013 when the regular Headmaster Ali Hussain was appointed. The appellant also took the stand that the respondent No.5 was arrested in connection with Dudhnoi PS Case No.124/2008 under Sections 147/341/325/307 IPC and was convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 3(three) months and a fine of Rs.500/-. A contention was raised that the respondent No.5 was not in service for a period of seven years in between as he was placed under suspension during the trial of the aforesaid case. Accordingly, the appellant took the stand that as the date of appointment of both the appellant as well as the respondent No.5 is 01.08.1987 as per the personal details but the respondent No.5 having been under suspension for a period of seven years in between, it is the appellant who has a better claim to be the In-Charge Headmaster of the school. 8. The respondent No.5 by filing an affidavit-in-opposition took the stand that the personal details showing the date of appointment of the appellant to be 01.08.1987 was incorrect and that the same was inserted by the earlier Headmaster of the school who was infact the elder brother of the appellant. The correct date of appointment of the appellant is 02.10.1989 as revealed by the letter of appointment which has been annexed to the writ petition. The respondent No.5 also took the stand that against this conviction in the aforesaid police case, an appeal was preferred before the High Court and he was honourably acquitted from the charges. It was further stated that upon being honourably acquitted, the respondent No.5 was reinstated in service and his absence during the period of suspension also stood regularized as per the order dated 03.03.2015 of the DEEO, Goalpara. It was further stated that upon being honourably acquitted, the respondent No.5 was reinstated in service and his absence during the period of suspension also stood regularized as per the order dated 03.03.2015 of the DEEO, Goalpara. In the circumstance, it was the stand of the respondent No.5 that as he is senior to the appellant and therefore, the order dated 10.04.2018 of the DEEO, Goalpara was rightly issued. 9. In the writ petition, a further stand was taken that as per the required qualification for the post of Headmaster, the respondent No.5 did not have a training on normal and therefore, he is not even qualified to be appointed as a Headmaster. 10. The learned Single Judge arrived at a conclusion that on the basis of the dates of appointment, the respondent No.5 is senior to the petitioner and secondly by interpreting the provision of the notification dated 02.03.2010 prescribing the qualifications for the post of Headmaster, the respondent No.5 has the qualification inasmuch as, he was not sent for undergoing the normal training course for a period of fifteen years during his service. Accordingly, by the judgment and order dated 19.06.2018, the writ petition of the appellant stood dismissed. 11. Being aggrieved, the present appeal has been preferred. In the appeal, Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the appellant has raised the contention that the appellant having been convicted in a criminal offence is not a man of impeccable character and therefore, it would be against the public interest to allow him to be the In-Charge Headmaster. A feeble contention was also raised that the appellant having earlier been allowed to be In-Charge Headmaster, the impugned order now allowing the respondent No.5 to be the In-Charge Headmaster is in reality an order, by which, one adhoc employee had been replaced by another. A contention was also raised that both the appellant as well as the respondent No.5 having been appointed on 01.09.1987, the appellant would have to be construed to be senior as the respondent No.5 did not have seven years of teaching experience in between. A contention was also raised that both the appellant as well as the respondent No.5 having been appointed on 01.09.1987, the appellant would have to be construed to be senior as the respondent No.5 did not have seven years of teaching experience in between. It has also been contended that the appellant is having the qualification of normal training, but the respondent No.5 does not have the said training and in view of the qualifications for the post of Headmaster prescribed by the notification dated 02.03.2010, the respondent No.5 is ineligible to be appointed as the Headmaster. 12. Mr. S.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 reiterates his earlier contentions that the appellant was infact appointed on 02.10.1989 and therefore, the respondent No.5 is senior. As regards the allegation that he was convicted, Mr. S.K. Talukdar, learned counsel reiterates the contention that on appeal, the respondent No.5 was honourably acquitted and thereupon his period of absence during suspension was also regularized as per the order dated 03.03.2015 of the DEEO, Goalpara. As regards the contention of the appellant that the respondent No.5 does not have the qualification of normal training, Mr. S.K. Talukdar, learned counsel relies upon paragraph-5 of the notification dated 02.03.2010 to contend that as the respondent No.5 was not sent for normal training during the fifteen year of his service, he by virtue of the provision of paragraph-5 of the notification is duly qualified to be appointed as a Headmaster. 13. As regards the issue as to who amongst the appellant and the respondent No.5 is senior, it is an undisputed position that the respondent No.5 was the founder teacher of the school and he had been in service from 07.02.1987, whereas, the appointment letter of the appellant reveals that he was appointed on 02.10.1989. The personal details provided by the SSA cannot have a superimposing effect over and above the actual dates of appointment of the appellant and the respondent No.5 and therefore, the same cannot be the basis for arriving at a conclusion that both the appellant and the respondent No.5 were appointed on 01.08.1987. More so, it is also taken note of that the personal details were prepared at the instance of the Headmaster of the school and that at the relevant time, when they were prepared, the elder brother of the appellant was holding the post of the Headmaster. More so, it is also taken note of that the personal details were prepared at the instance of the Headmaster of the school and that at the relevant time, when they were prepared, the elder brother of the appellant was holding the post of the Headmaster. As regards the other contention of the appellant that the respondent No.5 should not be allowed to be In-Charge Headmaster, as because he was convicted in a criminal offence and the same may have an adverse impact in the interest of the school, it is taken note of that on appeal, the respondent No.5 was honourably acquitted and his service during the intervening period of suspension had also been duly regularized. Upon the respondent No.5 being honourably acquitted and his service during the intervening period been regularized, it can not be construed that the respondent No.5 would be further disabled for his service benefits merely because he was convicted, albeit wrongly, by a criminal court. With regard to the further contention that the respondent No.5 does not have the qualification of normal training, the relevant provision of the notification dated 02.03.2010 providing for the qualification of a Headmaster is examined. 14. The relevant paragraph of the notification of 02.03.2010 being paragraph-5 is as follows:- “(5) The Teacher who have passed at least Matric/HSLC, Normal or have at least intermediate or its equivalent qualification or above and have successfully undergone necessary training as may be prescribed by the Department shall only be considered for promotion. However, the teacher who have completed minimum 15 (fifteen) years of continuous service but no facilities have been provided to him/her for the prescribed training may also be considered for promotion provided there is nothing adverse against them.” 15. On a plain reading of the earlier part of paragraph-5 of the notification dated 02.03.2010, it is seen that Matric/HSLC and a normal training are both essential and mandatory requirements for being qualified to be appointed as a Headmaster of M.E. School. But at the same time, the later part of paragraph-5 of the notification dated 02.03.2010 carves out an exception that in those cases where the Asstt. Teacher could not be sent by the authorities for normal training and have in the meantime rendered 15 years of continuous service as Asstt. Teacher, would also be eligible for being appointed as a Headmaster. Teacher could not be sent by the authorities for normal training and have in the meantime rendered 15 years of continuous service as Asstt. Teacher, would also be eligible for being appointed as a Headmaster. In other words, the later part of paragraph-5 clearly provides that even if an Asstt. Teacher does not have the qualification of normal training, but had been continuously serving as an Asstt. Teacher for fifteen years and during such period he had not been sent for normal training, such teachers would also be qualified for being appointed as a Headmaster. 16. In the instant case, it is an admitted position and also confirmed by the learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department that the respondent No.5 having been appointed in the year 1987, was not sent by the department for the normal training, without there being any fault of his. Therefore, in view of such factual position, the respondent No.5 is covered by the provision in the later part of paragraph-5 of the notification dated 02.03.2010 and by virtue of the provisions thereof, the respondent No.5 is equally qualified for being appointed as the Headmaster. 17. In view of the aforesaid conclusion, all the contention raised by the appellant are found unacceptable and the respondent No.5 in view of the above is found to be duly qualified for being appointed as Headmaster. It being so, no infirmity is found either in the order dated 10.04.2018 of the DEEO allowing the respondent No.5 be the In-Charge Headmaster of Tukura M.E. School nor any infirmity is found in the judgment and order dated 19.06.2018 of the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.2515/2018. Accordingly, the writ appeal is devoid of any merit and the same stands dismissed.