JUDGMENT : Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. Heard Mr. B. Purakayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. I. Alam, learned counsel for the NCTE as well as Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department of the Govt. of Assam. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioners seek for a direction to the respondent authorities to amend the Assam Elementary Education Provincialisation Rules, 1977, amongst other, by replacing the expression ME/MEM/MVS/Senior Basic Schools from the definition of 'upper primary school' under Rule 2(xii) of the Assam Elementary Education Provincialisation Rules 1977 ( in short Provincialiation Rules 1977). In other words, the petitioners are assailing the validity and vires of the definition of 'upper primary school' incorporated in Rule 2(xii) of the Provincialiation Rules 1977. One of the prayer of the writ petitioner being assailing the provision of the Rules, the learned Single judge by the order dated 15.11.2019 had required the matter to be placed before the Registry for being listed before the appropriate Bench. Accordingly, the matter is listed today. 3. We have also taken note of that in the writ petition, a notification dated 02.03.2010 of the respondent Elementary Education Department of the Govt. of Assam whereby, certain procedures for promotion to the post of headmaster was provided, had also been assailed. 4. According to Mr. B. Purakayastha, the dentition of 'upper primary school' incorporated in Rule 2(xii) of the Rules 1977 is in conflict with the definition of 'upper primary school' available in Rule 2(21) of the Assam Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 (in short RTE Rules 2011). The definition of 'upper primary school' in the provincialisation Rules 1977 is as follows:- ".........Upper Primary School" means the Institution imparting education upto Class VIII including ME School or MV School or ME Madrassa or Senior Basic School individually or a combination of any two or three of or all the four categories of these institutions; 5. On the other hand, the definition of 'upper primary school' under Rule 2(21) of RTE Rules 2011 is as follows:- "(21) Upper Primary School" means all schools imparting elementary education up to Class-VIII;" 6. On the other hand, the definition of 'upper primary school' under Rule 2(21) of RTE Rules 2011 is as follows:- "(21) Upper Primary School" means all schools imparting elementary education up to Class-VIII;" 6. A reading of the definition of 'upper primary school' in the Provincialisation Rules of 1977 shows that it means an institution imparting education up to Class-VIII and includes ME School or MV School or ME Madrassa or Senior Basic School. The mention of the respective categories of school i.e. ME school, MV school or ME Madrassa or Senior Basic School is inclusive in the said definition and the dominant provision of the definition is that upper primary school means an institution imparting education up to Class VIII. Now when look at the definition of 'upper primary school' as provided in RTE Rules 2011, we notice that upper primary school means all schools imparting elementary education up to Class-VIII. 7. Substantially we do not find any difference between the definition of 'upper primary school' in the provincialislation Rules 1977 and the definition of 'upper primary school' in the RTE Rules 2011. Making four different kind of schools inclusive in the definition does not change the nature and character of the definition and the dominant of the provision of the definition remains the same which is in conformity with the definition of 'upper primary school' as provided in RTE Rules 2011. From the said point of view, we do not find any merit on the claim of the petitioners as regards the vires of the definition of upper primary school as found in provincialisation Rules 1977. It is stated that the petitioners have also assailed the notification dated 02.03.2010 containing certain procedures for promotion to the post of headmaster. In this petition, we are not gone into the merits of the validity of the notification dated 02.03.2010. If the petitioner so desires, they are given liberty to assail the said notification independently in a separate proceeding. 8. The writ petition is found of devoid of any merit and accordingly, stands dismissed.