JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. N. Sarma, learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department. The records reveal that an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and therefore, it is to be construed that the said respondents being appeared before this Court upon receipt of notice. None appeared for the petitioner when the matter was called on 15.03.2018. Again on 19.03.2018 none appeared for the petitioner. Today when the matter is called upon, none appears for the petitioner. 2. By the earlier order of 19.03.2018, it was provided that in the event on the subsequent date, none appears for the petitioner, the matter would proceed in the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The claim of the petitioner is that he was appointed as an Asst. Teacher in Bhebeli Adarsha M.E. School in Dhemaji district on 15.02.1987 as per the resolution of the managing committee dated 12.12.1986. When the inspection of the school was undertaken in the year 1993, the name of the petitioner was shown as an Asstt. Teacher at serial No.5 in order of seniority, whereas, the name of the respondent No.5 was shown as an Asstt. Teacher at serial No.6. The petitioner was aggrieved by a resolution dated 02.11.1995 by which, the respondent No.5 was handed over the charge of the Headmaster of the school although he had joined subsequent to the petitioner. The further inspection order of 2007 had shown the respondent No.5 to be the Headmaster of the school, whereas, the petitioner was shown as the Asstt. Teacher. The petitioner raised objection against the same by filing representation dated 07.11.2012. 4. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 20.12.2013, whereby, in the list of employees provincialised under the Assam Venture Educational Institution (Provincialisation) Service Act, 2011, the name of the respondent No.5 was shown as the Headmaster of the school, whereas, the name of the petitioner had been excluded from such list. Accordingly, the relief sought for in the writ petition is that the order of 20.12.2013 be set aside and the petitioner be included in the list of teachers provincialised by showing his name above the respondent No.5. Accordingly, the relief sought for in the writ petition is that the order of 20.12.2013 be set aside and the petitioner be included in the list of teachers provincialised by showing his name above the respondent No.5. An affidavit-in-opposition has also been filed on behalf of the respondent No.5, wherein, a stand has been taken that although the petitioner was appointed by the resolution dated 12.12.1986, but such appointment was made on a temporary basis, inasmuch as, the petitioner had passed his higher secondary examination only in the year 1990. 5. A further stand has been taken that as per the Office Memorandum No. EMV 7/89/477 the qualification of bachelor degree is essential for the post of Headmaster of the M.E. School and as the petitioner did not have such qualification, therefore, he could not have been made the Headmaster of the school. The petitioner in his affidavit-in-reply had not taken any stand against the plea of the respondent No.5 that his initial appointment was on a temporary basis that he had acquired his higher secondary qualification only in the year 1990. But with regard to the other plea that the petitioner is not a graduate in order to enable him to be the Headmaster, a stand has been taken that the relevant criteria is seniority and not the qualification of graduation and therefore, such plea of the respondent No.5 is not sustainable. Mr. N. Sarma, learned standing counsel submits that as per the relevant rules in force, the qualification for the post of Headmaster of the M.E. school is infact matric with normal and not graduation and therefore, the contention of the respondent No.5 may not be sustainable. But further Mr. Sarma, learned standing counsel has also raised a pertinent issue that the respondent No.5 was made the Headmaster of the school by a resolution of the managing committee on 01.11.1995 and the said resolution has not been assailed by the petitioner in any appropriate forum. 6. The only stand of the petitioner is that against the said resolution and also the inspection report dated 03.08.2007, he had submitted a representation. A representation against the inspection of 03.08.2007 cannot be construed to be acceptable proposition that the appointment/promotion of the respondent No.5 as the Headmaster of the school in the year 1995 has been assailed. 6. The only stand of the petitioner is that against the said resolution and also the inspection report dated 03.08.2007, he had submitted a representation. A representation against the inspection of 03.08.2007 cannot be construed to be acceptable proposition that the appointment/promotion of the respondent No.5 as the Headmaster of the school in the year 1995 has been assailed. It is also noticed that as the respondent No.5 was made the Headmaster in the year 1995, it is almost 20 years thereafter that the present writ petition has been filed assailing the illegality and validity of the same. The law in this respect has been settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Shiba Shankar Mohapatra –vs- State of Orissa and Ors., reported in (2010) 12 SCC 471 , wherein, it has been held that if a seniority had been given to a incumbent and he continues to enjoy the same for a long period time, a challenge to such seniority at a very very belated stage has to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. By applying the aforesaid proposition of law, the challenge to the promotion of the respondent No.5 as the Headmaster of the school in the year 1995 cannot be invalidated in a writ petition, which has been filed in the year 2014. In such view of the matter, we find that the present writ petition is not maintainable in its present extent. 7. But however for the purpose of provincialisation as the Assam Venture Educational Institution (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 in short (Act of 2011) has been declared ultra vires by the Division Bench in WP(C) No.3190/2012 dated 23.09.2016, and the subsequent Assam Education (Provincialisation) of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institution Act, 2017 in short (Act of 2017) has been enacted in the meantime, the respondent authorities may consider the case of provincialisation of the petitioner under Section 13(6) of the Act of 2017, if otherwise the petitioner is eligible.