JUDGMENT : Both these writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being similar, an analogous hearing was done and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. The basic challenge is with regard to the promotion of the private respondents as Headmaster / Headmistress in different LP/UP Schools in the district of Cachar to the deprivation of the petitioners. 2. Before going to the issue which has arisen for determination, it would be convenient if the facts of the two cases are narrated in brief. 3. While in WP(C)/5250/2017, 8 (Eight) numbers of petitioners have joined together, in WP(C)/5219/2018, 5 (five) numbers of petitioners have joined together. The petitioners are Assistant Teachers / Science Graduate Teachers, who were appointed between 1987 and 1992 in various middle Schools in the district of Cachar. As indicated above, in the first writ petition, promotions of about 149 numbers of Teachers and in the second writ petition, promotions of 46 numbers of Teachers to the post of Headmaster/Headmistress in various Schools in the said district are the subject matter of challenge. Amongst the grounds of challenge, it has been alleged that the impugned promotion orders are in violation of notification dated 02.03.2010 issued by the Education (Elementary) in Department, Assam and there has been violation of the direction passed by this Court in order dated 19.07.2012 passed in WP(C)/402/2012. By the said order, this Court had directed finalization of the Gradation List after its preparation so that the teachers can raise their grievance and may approach the authority to rectify the same. It has also been alleged that a notice dated 23.06.2016 was issued by the District Elementary Education Officer, Cachar whereby a schedule was published for verification of service particulars for preparation of the Gradation List of teachers of middle schools for selection to the post of regular Headmaster / Headmistress. However, the impugned Gradation List which was obtained through RTI application has shown that such list was prepared on 23.06.2016 itself and therefore the verification exercise was a farce. Specific allegations have been made against certain respondents whose promotions have been shown to be in compliance of certain orders of this Court passed in writ petitions, which however, on verification has been found to be pertaining to some other subject matter / Department and not relevant to the present process at all. Specific allegations have been made against certain respondents whose promotions have been shown to be in compliance of certain orders of this Court passed in writ petitions, which however, on verification has been found to be pertaining to some other subject matter / Department and not relevant to the present process at all. It has also been averred that while the criteria for such promotion is seniority-cum-efficiency, persons who are much junior to the petitioners have been promoted whereby the petitioners who are senior Teachers have been deprived of such promotion. Specific allegations have also been made regarding affording of promotion to certain respondents whose names were not even present in the impugned Gradation List. 4. I have heard Shri KN Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)/5219/2018 and Shri SD Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C)/5250/2017. I have also heard Shri B. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 20 & 39 in WP(C)/5219/2018 and the respondent nos. 6, 9, 10, 15, 18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 40, 57, 62, 63, 64, 76, 77, 83, 90, 93 & 119 in WP(C)/5250/2017; Ms. M. Dev, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 81, 82, 91, 109, 125, 131 and 137 in WP(C)/5250/2017 and Shri R. Mazumdar as well as Shri A. Phukan learned Standing Counsel for the Education (Elementary) Department. The materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined. 5. Shri Choudhury, the learned Senior Counsel has contended on behalf of the petitioners that there is no dispute that the criteria for promotion to the post of Headmaster is seniority-cum-efficiency. Attention of this Court has been drawn to an order dated 19.07.2012 passed by this Court in WP(C)/402/2012 in which a direction was given to finalize the Gradation List. On 23.06.2016, a notice was published, giving the schedule for verification whereby three dates were notified. However, on the same date i.e. 23.06.2016 itself, the Gradation List was already published. It is submitted that the entire process adopted, in purported compliance of the direction of this Court was a farce. It is submitted that on 19.08.2017, four numbers of respondents were selected in which reference has been made to an order dated 19.05.2016 of this Court passed in WP(C)/2393/2016. It is submitted that the entire process adopted, in purported compliance of the direction of this Court was a farce. It is submitted that on 19.08.2017, four numbers of respondents were selected in which reference has been made to an order dated 19.05.2016 of this Court passed in WP(C)/2393/2016. However, on obtaining the certified copy of the order dated 19.05.2016 passed in the aforesaid writ petition, it was revealed that the order pertains to a different subject altogether. Similarly, another appointment order dated 19.08.2017 pertaining to 6(six) numbers of respondents has been brought on record in which there is a reference to an order dated 19.05.2016 of this Court passed in WP(C)/2733/2016. However, similar to the earlier instance, on obtaining the certified copy of the said order dated 19.05.2016, it was revealed that it pertained to different petitioners and there is a reference to a Gradation List of 22.08.2013. It is further submitted that the allegations, in spite of being serious in nature, there is no rebuttal by the State respondents as no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed in either of the cases. 6. Shri S.D. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C)/5250/2017 has additionally submitted that all information were sought to be obtained under the RTI Act. However, the petitioners were informed that there were no records available regarding the Gradation List. Thereafter, similar information was sought for from the Block Elementary Education Officer and a similar response was there that there was no such List. It has further been contended that such Gradation List were not found either in the Narsingpur Block or Sonai Block or the Katigorah Block. It was only thereafter that the Gradation List was ultimately furnished. An appointment order dated 22.06.2017 has been brought to the notice of this Court which is alleged to be issued in terms of an order dated 19.07.2012 passed by this Court in WP(C)/1828/2012 in respect of respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9. Another appointment letter of the same date is for the respondent nos. 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 which is also said to be in terms of the said order. However, on obtaining the certified copy, it has been revealed that the said writ petition is relating to a different subject altogether, namely Essential Commodities Act. 7, 8 and 9. Another appointment letter of the same date is for the respondent nos. 35, 36, 37, 38 and 39 which is also said to be in terms of the said order. However, on obtaining the certified copy, it has been revealed that the said writ petition is relating to a different subject altogether, namely Essential Commodities Act. Shri Purkayastha, the learned counsel has also referred to an appointment order dated 22.06.2017 in respect of, amongst others, the respondent no. 133, which has been said to be in compliance with an order dated 19.07.2012 of this Court passed in WP(C)/3346/2016. However, subsequently information has been received that the aforesaid writ petition was dismissed on withdrawal on 06.06.2016 and therefore it is submitted that there was no occasion to offer such appointment in absence of any direction of this Court. Similarly, reference has been made to an appointment order dated 22.06.2017, in respect of respondent nos. 15, 16 and 17 which has been said to be in compliance with an order dated 19.07.2012 of this Court passed in WP(C)/1826/2012. However, the said writ petition is pertaining to a matter of transfer of Morigaon district. The said writ petition and order has been taken recourse to even for the appointment of the respondent nos. 40 and 41. The appointments of the respondent nos. 27 to 32 have been made on 05.07.2017, purportedly in compliance with an order dated 19.05.2016 of this Court in WP(C)/2733/2016. It is submitted that though the process of finalization of the Gradation List was initiated in the year 2013, the same was not finalized. 7. Appointments of respondent nos. 46, 66 to 72 as well as for respondent nos. 50, 51, 52, 53, 76 and 78 have been made vide two separate orders of the same date 05.07.2017, which has been issued in purported compliance of an order dated 19.05.2016 of this Court in WP(C)/2733/2016. The appointment orders of the other respondents have also been annexed in this writ petition. It is submitted that by means of 24 numbers of such orders, 84 persons have been given the benefit of promotion by referring to certain orders of this Court passed in different writ petitions. It is submitted that most of the aforesaid writ petitions were not on the subject matter and therefore the basis of such promotions were wholly non-existing. It is submitted that by means of 24 numbers of such orders, 84 persons have been given the benefit of promotion by referring to certain orders of this Court passed in different writ petitions. It is submitted that most of the aforesaid writ petitions were not on the subject matter and therefore the basis of such promotions were wholly non-existing. The learned counsel has also referred to an appointment order dated 12.09.2009 in respect of respondent no. 73 who did not meet the requirement of serving for 10 years in the feeder post. 8. Reference has also been made to the Assam FRBN Rules, more particularly Rule 7(1)(d) thereof wherein it has been categorically laid down that there can be no appointments in anticipatory vacancies. The aforesaid Rules have been pressed into service so far as the appointments of respondent nos. 10 and 49 are concerned, as they were given appointment respectively vide orders dated 22.06.2017 and 05.07.2017, whereas the vacancy had arisen on 20.10.2017 and 31.07.2017. 9. The learned counsel submits that with regard to this case, there was publication of notice in the news paper, giving opportunity to all affected parties to contest. 10. Shri Purkayastha, the learned counsel has placed reliance upon the following case laws. i. Krishan Yadav and Anr. Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. [ (1994) 4 SCC 165 ] ii. Biswa Ranjan Sahoo and Ors. Vs. Sushanta Kumar Sushanta Kumar Dind and Ors. [ (1996) 5 SCC 365 ] iii. Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India and Ors. [ (2007) 4 SCC 54 ] iv. Pramod Kumar Vs. U.P. Secondary Education Services Commission and Ors. [ (2008) 7 SCC 153 ] v. Nijira Brahma Vs. State of Assam and Ors. [2017 (4) GLT 39] 11. In the case of Krishan Yadav (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering a matter where there were very serious allegations of fraud, nepotism and arbitrariness in a recruitment process and accordingly CBI investigation was directed. In the report of the CBI, the allegations were substantiated and under that context, it was held that in a case of such enormous illegalities, individual notice would not be required as “fraud unravels everything”. In the case of Biswa Ranjan Sahu (supra), a similar stand was taken wherein mass mal-practice was established in a recruitment process. 12. In the report of the CBI, the allegations were substantiated and under that context, it was held that in a case of such enormous illegalities, individual notice would not be required as “fraud unravels everything”. In the case of Biswa Ranjan Sahu (supra), a similar stand was taken wherein mass mal-practice was established in a recruitment process. 12. In the case of Ashok Kumar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that an illegal appointment is non est in the eyes of law. In the case of Pramod Kumar (supra), it has been laid down that essential educational qualification cannot be compromised in a recruitment process and any appointments made contrary to the statute will be void in law. 13. In the case of Nijira Brahma (supra), this High Court has laid down that publication of a select list is always desirable as such a step attaches more credibility to the selection process. 14. Per contra, Shri R. Mazumdar, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary (Education) Department has submitted that the projection made by the petitioners are not wholly correct. He submits that the first Gradation List was the subject matter of challenge in WP(C)/402/2012, in which this Court vide order dated 19.07.2012 had allowed the same by directing preparation of a fresh Gradation List. Thereafter, WP(C)/2393/2013 was instituted whereby a Select List dated 27.02.2013 was put to challenge. It is however submitted that the said Select List was not acted upon and on the other hand a Gradation List dated 22.08.2013 was there. The learned Standing Counsel has also referred to WP(C)/2733/2013, wherein the Gradation list dated 22.08.2013 was not the subject matter of challenge. However, a subsequent writ petition being WP(C)/3372/2016 was filed challenging the aforesaid Gradation List dated 22.08.2013. However, this Court vide order dated 10.10.2018 has referred the said Graduation List as a Select List which has lost its force. In any case, on 14.06.2016, the Director of Elementary Education had directed the District Elementary Education Officer to prepare fresh Gradation List for which notice was issued on 23.06.2016 giving the schedule for verification. On 29.06.2016, a minutes of meeting was forwarded to the Director. 15. In any case, on 14.06.2016, the Director of Elementary Education had directed the District Elementary Education Officer to prepare fresh Gradation List for which notice was issued on 23.06.2016 giving the schedule for verification. On 29.06.2016, a minutes of meeting was forwarded to the Director. 15. So far as the contention made by the petitioners wherein appointment orders have been made in purported compliance with certain writ petitions having no relevance, the learned Standing Counsel Shri Majumdar has submitted that there were some inadvertent errors in the orders of promotion. He submits that wherein WP(C)/1828/2012 has been written, the same should have been WP(C)/1825/2012 which was directed to be listed along with the original writ petition, WP(C)/402/2012. The learned Standing Counsel, however fairly submits that the records do not contain a final Gradation List. 16. Opposing the writ petition WP(C)/5250/2017, Shri B. Purkayastha appearing for few of the respondents has submitted that the present writ petition is not in the nature of public interest litigation but filed in individual capacity. He submits that the irregularities alleged are weak and general in nature and therefore this Court should not take cognizance thereof. He submits that out of the petitioners, only a few may have their grievance with regard to their promotion. However, there is cause of action of the other petitioners and therefore the writ petition is not maintainable. He further submits that many of the beneficiaries have retired and some of them have also expired. 17. Ms. M. Dev, learned counsel appearing for few of the respondents in WP(C)/5250/17 has submitted that her clients are all senior to the petitioners. It is submitted that the private respondents had earlier approached the Assam Administrative Tribunal in the year 2009 and thereafter the High Court. It is submitted that after the order dated 19.07.2012 was passed by this Court in WP(C)/402/2012, a Gradation List was published in the year 2013, which was acted upon and the beneficiaries therein are not the respondents. It is further submitted that though 153 numbers of private respondents have been made parties, the challenge is with regard to respondent nos. 6 to 44 only. It is submitted that all her clients are Science Graduate Teachers and have been duly promoted. On the other hand, the petitioner no. 1 is an undergraduate, who has also retired from service. It is further submitted that though 153 numbers of private respondents have been made parties, the challenge is with regard to respondent nos. 6 to 44 only. It is submitted that all her clients are Science Graduate Teachers and have been duly promoted. On the other hand, the petitioner no. 1 is an undergraduate, who has also retired from service. It is also submitted that under the list of 2013, 137 persons were promoted, and all of them have not been parties. It is also submitted that there is no live cause of action due to subsequent developments as many of the Schools involved have been amalgamated with High/Higher Secondary Schools pursuant to a policy decision of the State vide Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2016. Specific mention has been made that out of seven respondents, six numbers of respondent Schools have been amalgamated with High / Higher Secondary Schools and the Department of Secondary Education has not been made a party. She submits that pursuant to such amalgamation, the said respondents are serving as Assistant Headmaster / Headmistress as per the policy decision. 18. The rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have also been duly examined. The reconstructed records which have been placed before this Court have also been examined. 19. From the materials on record and from a perusal of the order dated 19.07.2012 of this Court passed in WP(C)/402/2012, it transpires that there is no dispute that there was a direction from the Court to finalize the Gradation List. It is further not in dispute that on 23.06.2016, a notice was issued giving the schedule for verification of the documents in which three dates were given. However, the records would show that such Gradation List was published on the same date i.e. 23.06.2016. Therefore, there is no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the procedure established in law for finalization of a Gradation List was not followed. There was no effective scope or opportunity to deal with any objections by any aggrieved party regarding their position in the Gradation List vis-a-vis other persons in the list. 20. Therefore, there is no hesitation to come to a conclusion that the procedure established in law for finalization of a Gradation List was not followed. There was no effective scope or opportunity to deal with any objections by any aggrieved party regarding their position in the Gradation List vis-a-vis other persons in the list. 20. The next contention is that apart from making promotions from the so-called Gradation List which has been prepared in purported compliance of directions of this Court, many promotions have been shown to be made as per direction of this Court in different writ petitions. The categorical case projected by the petitioners is that on obtaining certified copies of the orders of the Court, based upon which the promotions have been made, the said orders of this Court were pertaining to a different subject matter altogether. The submission is therefore that in the garb of compliance of certain orders of this Court, favoritism has been resorted to by making promotions of persons, who were not deserving. This Court is of the opinion that ex facie the aforesaid submission appears to be correct as the certified copies of the orders of this Court, which finds mention in the orders of promotion are of different subject matters. However, the said anomalies have been explained by Shri Majumdar, the learned Standing Counsel of the Department. He submits that while issuing the promotion orders, there has been certain inadvertent typographical error in referring to the case numbers of the writ petitions in which directions were given. He submits that for instance, WP(C)/1828/2012 was referred to which should have been WP(C)/1825/2012 and in the said writ petition, there was a direction to be linked with the original writ petition, namely WP(C)/402/2012. This Court has also considered the submission of Shri Mazumdar, learned counsel that a common order dated 19.05.2016 was passed in a number of writ petitions namely WP(C)/2733/2016, WP(C)/2393/2013, WP(C)/7485/2013, WP(C)/3829/2014, WP(C)/2651/2015, WP(C)/1553/2015 and WP(C)/3517/2015. 21. The principal ground of challenge is non-finalization of the Gradation List before making the promotions to the post of Headmaster/Headmistress. Though the importance of a Gradation List in a matter of promotion cannot be questioned, the criteria for promotion is seniority-cum-efficiency. The case laws which have been cited on behalf of the petitioners mainly pertain to Select List for the purpose of appointment. Though the importance of a Gradation List in a matter of promotion cannot be questioned, the criteria for promotion is seniority-cum-efficiency. The case laws which have been cited on behalf of the petitioners mainly pertain to Select List for the purpose of appointment. However, there is a considerable difference between a Select List and a Gradation List. Whereas a person empanelled in a Select List may have a cause of action to be espoused when persons below him have been given appointment or that the selection was vitiated by fraud. However, a Gradation List only provides the names of the incumbents in the feeder cadre and such candidates are considered for promotion by applying the criteria and in the instant case, such criteria is seniority-cum-efficiency. This Court also cannot be oblivious of the fact that the Gradation List is of the year 2016 and promotions were made based upon such Gradation List in the year 2017 and in the meantime, almost 6(six) years have passed. Though there was no delay of the petitioners in approaching the Court, in the meantime, there have been many developments as many of the School involved have been amalgamated with High Schools and the incumbents who were promoted to the post of Headmaster in the LP/UP Schools were given the appointment of Assistant Headmaster in the amalgamated School as per the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2016. It is also not in dispute that many of the private respondents have retired from service and few of them have also expired. It also transpires that the issue of seniority of the petitioners vis-a-vis the private respondents, is a disputed one and in fact, there are categorical statements that respondent nos. 81, 82, 91, 109, 125, 131 and 137 in WP(C)/5250/2017 are senior to the petitioners in the said case. 22. In view of the aforesaid discussion, interfering with the appointment orders after a considerable length of time of more than six years which were done on the basis of a Gradation List of the year 2016 may not be in the public interest. At the same time, the rights, if any of the petitioners cannot be allowed to be infringed. In view of the aforesaid discussion, interfering with the appointment orders after a considerable length of time of more than six years which were done on the basis of a Gradation List of the year 2016 may not be in the public interest. At the same time, the rights, if any of the petitioners cannot be allowed to be infringed. Therefore, without interfering with the appointments of the private respondents, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be served and the equities would be balanced if the cases of the petitioners in these two writ petitions are directed to be considered for their promotion to the next higher post of Headmaster / Headmistress and if such promotions are to be made in any amalgamated Schools, to the post of Assistant Headmaster / Headmistress in such amalgamated Schools. Accordingly, the petitioners may submit necessary applications before the director of elementary education / secondary education with documents to show that they are senior to any of the incumbents who were promoted pursuant to the Gradation list of 2016 and in that event, after verification, such of the petitioners are to be considered for promotion to the higher post as mentioned above by applying the prescribed criteria of seniority cum efficiency and thereafter the candidates found suitable be offered the promotion. The aforementioned exercise be completed expeditiously and within a period of three months from the date of furnishing of certified copies of this order. 23. Both these writ petitions accordingly stand disposed of. 24. No order as to cost. 25. The reconstructed records be returned to the learned Standing Counsel.