JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. M.U. Mondal and Mr. S. Islam, learned counsels for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.P. Bhattacharjee and Mr. N. Sarma, learned counsels for the Elementary Education. Mr. M. Hasan appears for the private respondents in all the cases and Mr. N. Islam appears for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 5318/2013. 2. The issues being the same in all the writ petitions, the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common Judgment & Order. 3. The petitioners are all graduates and working as Assistant Teachers/ in-charge Headmasters in various Middle Schools. 4. The petitioners’ case is that the promotion of teachers to the post of Headmaster in the M.E Schools should only be of teachers who have Degree qualifications, as the educational qualification required for appointment as a teacher is a graduate, as per the NCTE Notifications dated 23.08.2010 and 29.07.2011. Secondly, the promotion of the private respondents to the post of Headmasters should be set aside, as they do not have a Degree qualification, which is in violation of the NCTE Notification dated 23.08.2010, NCTE Notification dated 29.07.2011 and in violation of Clause 2 & 6 of the “Procedure for Promotion to the post of Headmaster of ME/MEM/MV and Senior Basic Schools”, as given in the Notification dated 02.03.2010, issued by the Education (Elementary) Department, Assam. 5. The petitioners counsels submit that as per Clause 2 of the Notification dated 02.03.2010, the Promotional Committee is to prepare Sub-Division wise gradation list of teachers, separately for ME/MEM/MV and Senior Basic Schools in order of seniority, which would in essence be a panel list of teachers who are eligible to be appointed as Headmaster. Thereafter, the promotion to Headmaster had to be done on the basis of the said gradation list. They submit that the criteria for promotion to the post of Headmaster is seniority. They also submit that in the present case, the promotion of the private respondents to the post of Headmasters has been done after the validity period of 1 year of the panel list of selected teachers has expired, which is in violation of Clause 6 of the Notification dated 02.03.2010. 6. They also submit that in the present case, the promotion of the private respondents to the post of Headmasters has been done after the validity period of 1 year of the panel list of selected teachers has expired, which is in violation of Clause 6 of the Notification dated 02.03.2010. 6. The learned counsels for the respondents, on the other hand submit that as per Para 4 of the NCTE Notification dated 23.08.2010 and the subsequent letter dated 28.08.2017, issued by the NCTE, the requirement of a teacher of a ME School, having a Degree qualification is not required for those teachers who have been appointed prior to 03.09.2001. Further, as per the Procedure for Promotion to the post of Headmasters of ME/MEM/MV and Senior Basic Schools, issued by the State respondents vide the earlier Notification dated 30.08.1986 and the latest Notification dated 02.03.2010, the teachers who have the minimum qualification of Matric/HSLC could be considered for promotion to the post of Headmaster. 7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 8. To a query given to the counsels for the petitioners as to whether the petitioners would become senior to the private respondents, in the event Sub-Division wise gradation list of teachers were made separately for ME/MEM/MV and Senior Basic Schools, the counsels for the petitioners submit that the petitioners would still remain junior to the private respondents. 9. Clause 2, 5 & 6 of the Procedure for Promotion to the Post of ME/MEM/MV and Senior Basic Schools, issued by the Education (Elementary) Department vide Notification dated 02.03.2010 states as follows: “2. The committee shall prepare a Sub-division wise gradation list of Teachers (separately for ME/MEM/MV and Senior Basic Schools) in order of seniority showing date of appointment, Educational qualification, year of passing of training, age on the date of appointment, date of retirement which should be communicated to all incumbents with copies to all the concerned authorities for information. 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. 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. 6. The committee shall prepared a panel of selected Teachers which shall remain valid for one year from the date of selection.” 10. A perusal of the above shows that as per Clause 5 of the said Notification dated 02.03.2010, teachers who have the minimum qualification of Matric/HSLC are eligible for promotion to the post of Headmaster. 11. Para 1 of the NCTE Notification dated 23.08.2010 requires that a teacher of Class 6 to 8 of ME Schools should have a Degree qualification. However, Para 4 of the same Notification states that the teachers appointed to Class 1 to 8, prior to the date of the Notification dated 23.08.2010, need not acquire the minimum qualification specified in Para 1. Para 4 (c) of the said NCTE Notification dated 23.08.2010 further states that teachers appointed before 03.09.2001, in accordance with the prevalent recruitment rules, need not acquire the minimum degree qualification as specified in para 1. It is stated at the Bar, that prior to the NCTE Notification dated 23.08.2010, the educational qualification required for appointment as a teacher or Headmaster of an ME/MEM/MV School was Matric/HSLC. 12. Para 4 of the NCTE Notification dated 23.08.2010 states as follows: “4. Teacher appointed before the date of this Notification:- The following categories of teachers appointed for classes I to VIII prior to date of this Notification need not acquire the minimum qualifications specified in Para (1) above. (a) A teacher appointed on or after the 3rd September, 2001 i.e. the date on which the NCTE (Determination of Minimum Qualifications for Recruitment of Teachers in Schools) Regulations, 2001 (as amended from time to time) came into force, in accordance with that Regulation. Provided that a teacher of class I to V possessing B.Ed qualification, or a teacher possessing B.Ed (Special Education) or D.Ed (Special Education) qualification shall undergo an NCTE recognized 6 – month special programme on elementary education. Provided that a teacher of class I to V possessing B.Ed qualification, or a teacher possessing B.Ed (Special Education) or D.Ed (Special Education) qualification shall undergo an NCTE recognized 6 – month special programme on elementary education. (b) A teacher of class I to V with B.Ed qualification who has completed a 6- month Special Basic Teacher Course (Special BTC) approved by the NCTE; (c) A teacher appointed before the 3rd September, 2001, in accordance with the prevalent Recruitment Rules.” 13. As per the above Para 4 of the NCTE Notification dated 23.08.2010, Para 1 of the NCTE Notification dated 23.08.2010 issued by the NCTE, requiring teachers of Class- VI to VIII to have a degree qualification, is not applicable to those teachers who have been appointed prior to the Notification date. Also Para 4(C) of the NCTE Notification dated 23.08.2010 states that the minimum degree qualification specified for teachers in Para 1 need not be acquired for those teachers who were appointed prior to 03.09.2001. The NCTE notification dated 29.07.2011, which is an amendment of the NCTE Notification dated 23.08.2010, has also not touched or made any amendment to Para 4(C) of the NCTE notification dated 23.08.2010. The letter dated 28.08.2017 issued by the NCTE clarifies Para 4(C) of the NCTE notification dated 23.08.2010, by stating that the NCTE notification dated 23.08.2010 is not applicable to a teacher appointed before 03.09.2001. The private respondents were apparently appointed as teachers prior to 03.09.2001. 14. The extract of the NCTE letter dated 28.08.2017 is reproduced below:- “Clarification:- As per the Para 4(c) of the NCTE notification dated 23.08.2010 with respect to determination of qualification of teachers to be appointed in schools, this notification is not applicable to a teacher appointed before the 3rd September, 2001 in accordance with the prevalent recruitment rules. It is further stated that the NCTE had taken out no notification prior to 3rd September, 2001 regarding determination of qualification of teachers to be appointed in schools. So the prevalent recruitment rules of the respective state govt. will be applicable in such cases. It is reiterated that the said teachers should have been recruited as per the extant state government policy.” 15. So the prevalent recruitment rules of the respective state govt. will be applicable in such cases. It is reiterated that the said teachers should have been recruited as per the extant state government policy.” 15. A reading of Para 4(C) of the NCTE notification dated 23.08.2010 and the NCTE letter dated 28.08.2017 shows that those teachers who were appointed prior to 03.09.2001 would not require to have a degree qualification for being a teacher of an M.E. School. Accordingly, there is no bar for teachers appointed prior to 03.09.2001, to be promoted to the post of Headmaster, provided they have the minimum educational qualification of Matric/HSLC pass, as per the Procedure for Promotion to the post of Headmaster of ME/MEM/MV and Senior Basic Schools, as given in the notification dated 02.03.2010, issued by the Education (Elementary) Department, Assam. 16. In the present case, it is not the stand of the petitioners that the private respondents/teachers who have been promoted to the post of Headmaster, were appointed as teachers of ME Schools, subsequent to 03.09.2001. Accordingly, the promotion of the private respondents to Headmasters, who were appointed as teachers prior to 03.09.2001 and having the minimum qualification of Matric/HSLC cannot be interfered with, provided they fulfilled the other conditions, as required by the Notification dated 02.03.2010 issued by the State respondents. 17. The State respondents have made a gradation list of teachers dated 24.02.2014, but have apparently not made Sub-Division wise gradation list of teachers/panel of teachers for promotion, separately for ME/MEM/MV and Senior Basic Schools in order of seniority. However, the fact remains that the petitioners are junior to the private respondents and would still remain junior, even if the gradation lists were made Sub-Division wise, separately for the ME/MEM/MV and Senior Basic Schools. 18. The promotion orders dated 27.02.2015, annexed by the writ petitioners show that the promotion orders were issued 3 days after the 1 year validity period of the panel of selected teachers/gradation list had apparently expired. 19. 18. The promotion orders dated 27.02.2015, annexed by the writ petitioners show that the promotion orders were issued 3 days after the 1 year validity period of the panel of selected teachers/gradation list had apparently expired. 19. With regard to the issue of promotion of the private respondents beyond the validity period of the gradation list/panel of selected teachers, this Court vide order dated 06.01.2015, passed in WP(C) No. 6747/2014 had directed the State respondents to continue to undertake the process for promotion to the post of Headmaster of the M.E School, Dhubri District under Bilasipara Sub-Division by considering the case of the petitioners therein, while recording the fact that WP(C) No. 5318/2013, which is one of the cases being decided herein was pending. 20. The above goes to the show that there were a number of cases pending with regard to the issues that has been raised in the present writ petitions and that promotion was allowed to be made by the Court, beyond the one year validity period of the gradation list/panel of teachers. Be that as it may, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioners by not making gradation lists Sub-Division wise for ME/MEM/MV and Senior Basic Schools, as the seniority position of the petitioners vis-à-vis the private respondents, would have remained the same. However, to cut a long story short, this Court would have to see whether the Procedure for Promotion made by the State respondents in the Notification dated 02.03.2010, which is basically the guidelines to be followed by the State respondents, are legally enforceable and whether the petitioner can make a challenge to the promotion of the respondents on the ground that the guidelines have not been followed in toto, though promotions were made as per the Gradation list made by the State respondents and promotion orders were issued 3 days after expiry of the panel list, which is basically the gradation list. In this respect, the Apex Court in the case of Narendra Kumar Maheshwari v. Union of India & Others, reported in 1990 Supp SCC 440 has held that when guidelines do not effect or regulate the right of any person, there is very limited scope for judicial review on the ground that the guidelines have not been followed or have been deviated from. 21. 21. In the present case, the making of a gradation list Sub-Division wise separately for ME/MEM/MV and Senior Basic Schools as per the Notification dated 02.03.2010, would not have affected the chance of promotion of the private respondents, as the placement of the petitioners and the private respondents in the gradation list made by the State respondents is not disputed. Further, the guidelines/procedure for promotion are not statutory in character. The deviation from the guidelines, in the present case, does not involve arbitrariness or discrimination with regard to the rights of the petitioners vis-à-vis the private respondents. The fundamental issue of the petitioners right to be considered for promotion, on the basis of their seniority, has not been undermined by the manner in which the private respondents have been promoted to the post of Headmaster. In fact, the petitioners right to be considered for promotion to the post of Headmaster will arise only after the promotions of the private respondents, as the selection/appointment is based on seniority. Accordingly, this Court holds that in the facts and circumstances of this case, strict adherence to the guidelines is not arbitrary as no rights of the petitioners have been violated. 22. At this stage, the learned counsels for the petitioners submit that they do not wish to press the case with regard to their challenge to the promotion of the private respondents as Headmaster. However, they submit that a direction should be issued to the respondent No. 1 to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Headmasters, as and when vacancies arise in the various schools and after Clause 2 of the Notification dated 02.03.2010 is followed in toto. 23. The learned counsels for the State respondents do not have any objection to the same. The learned counsels for the respondents submit that in the eventuality of any vacancies being available in the schools, the State respondents shall prepare a Sub-Division wise gradation list of teachers separately for ME/MEM/MV and Senior Basic Schools in order of seniority and make promotions of the petitioners as per their placement in the said gradation list. 24. The learned counsels for the respondents submit that in the eventuality of any vacancies being available in the schools, the State respondents shall prepare a Sub-Division wise gradation list of teachers separately for ME/MEM/MV and Senior Basic Schools in order of seniority and make promotions of the petitioners as per their placement in the said gradation list. 24. In view of the reasons stated above and with the consent of the parties, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondent No. 1 to consider the case of the petitioners for promotion to the post of Headmasters, in the event of any vacancy that may arise or have arisen in the post of Headmasters in the various ME/MEM/MV and Senior Basic Schools, after following Clause 2 of the Notification dated 02.03.2010 in toto, regard being had to the seniority position of the petitioners in the said gradation lists.