JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J. 1. Considering the subject matter involved and the stand of the BTC made in the affidavit filed in one of the writ petition namely, WP(C)/1735/2024, all these writ petitions are taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself. The same pertains to selection and appointment of the post of Headmasters in provincialised High Schools in the district of Baksa. 2. To state in brief, the petitioners who in total are 20 in numbers in all these 5 (five) petitions are aggrieved by the selection and appointment of the private respondents in a recruitment exercise conducted by the authorities. The primary ground of challenge is violation of the Rules in question namely, the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised Schools) Service Rules, 2018. It is contended that Rule 14 of the said Rules laid down the procedure for recruitment of Headmaster / Superintendent and the selection and appointment have been made in gross violation of the said procedure. On the other hand, the stand of the respondent authorities is that there is substantial compliance of the Rules and the most suitable candidates were appointed. 3. I have heard Shri S. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/1735/2024, WP(C)/1736/2024 and WP(C)/2339/2024; Shri B. Purkayastha, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/1856/2024 and Shri S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)/1991/2024. I have also heard Shri S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, BTC; Shri B.B. Narzary, learned Senior Counsel assisted by S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 in WP(C)/1735/2024, WP(C)/1736/2024 and WP(C)/2339/2024 and as respondent no. 11 in WP(C)/1991/2024; Ms. K. Devi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 18, 35 and 36 in WP(C)/1991/2024, Shri J. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 22, 23 and 25 in WP(C)/1991/2024 and Shri P.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 24, 26 to 34 in WP(C)/1991/2024. Shri Bora, the learned Standing Counsel has clarified that in this bunch of cases, affidavit-in-opposition has been filed in WP(C)/1735/2024 which would cover all the cases. He has also submitted that part of the records is also available with him which however do not contain the note sheets. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 14 of the aforesaid Rules and has contended that the selection has to be done on the basis of seniority. He has also submitted that part of the records is also available with him which however do not contain the note sheets. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 14 of the aforesaid Rules and has contended that the selection has to be done on the basis of seniority. Attention of this Court have been drawn to the Gradation List to establish that the petitioners are senior to the private respondents and therefore, they ought to have been selected and appointed unless compelling circumstances existed which also are required to be recorded by the authorities which have not been done. It is submitted that the selection has been done based on the whims and caprices of the authorities in gross violation of the Rules. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners have referred to the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the BTC which has been mentioned above wherein the Minutes of the Meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee dated 04.03.2024 has been annexed. It is submitted that the said Minutes has only recorded the eligibility criteria and no reasons have been cited as to how the selection was made or that the rigors of Rule 14 were followed in a strict manner. The learned counsel accordingly submits that the writ petitions be allowed and the petitioners be given the benefit of selection and appointment on the basis of the seniority and in accordance with the Rules holding the field. 6. Per contra, Shri Bora, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting dated 04.03.2024 had deliberated the matter and thereafter had made the selection. He has submitted that the members are experts and opinions rendered by experts may not be interfered by this Court as the same are within the dominion of the said body. He has also submitted that Rules have been substantially complied with. 7. The learned counsel for the private respondents have endorsed the submission of the learned Standing Counsel, BTC and has contended that and the selection was done in a fair manner. They have further submitted that the private respondents cannot be put at fault as there is no allegation that they do not fulfill the eligibility criteria 8. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined. 9. They have further submitted that the private respondents cannot be put at fault as there is no allegation that they do not fulfill the eligibility criteria 8. The rival submissions have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined. 9. Rule 14 of the Rules of 2018 lay down the procedure for recruitment to the post of Headmaster / superintendent. For ready reference, the said Rule is extracted herein below: ” 14. Recruitment to the post of Head Master/Superintendent and procedure thereof:- (1) The post of Headmaster of a High School and Superintendent of a High Madrassa shall be filled up by promotion from the candidates amongst the Graduate Teachers as per District-wise seniority list on the recommendation of the District Selection Committee constituted under Rule 16(2). The selection of Headmaster and Superintendent shall be based upon seniority and satisfactory Annual Confidential Report for last 3 consecutive years as per procedure provider under sub-rule (3): Provided that the seniority of the Graduate Teacher shall be determined from the date of receiving Graduate scale of pay by the respective Assistant Teacher .” (2) Eligibility for the post of Headmaster/ Superintendent in High School/High Madrassa as the case may be shall be as follows:- (a) He must be B.A/B.Sc/B.Com with B.T/B.Ed degree from any recognized University. In respect of Hindi Teacher having degree qualification, the Hindi 'Parangat' and Nishanar' shall be considered instead of B.T/B.Ed (b) He must have at least 10 years of teaching experience as Graduate Teacher: Provided that the Graduate teacher shall include the cadre of Assistant Headmaster for the purpose of selection to the post of Headmaster and the seniority of the Assistant Headmaster shall be counted from the date of joining as Graduate Teacher with graduate scale of pay: Provided further that in case of amalgamated High School where ME/MV school has been amalgamated, the Assistant Headmaster is eligible for selection as Head- master subject to the condition that the incumbent should have at least 15 years of teaching experience as graduate teacher including the period of service in the erstwhile ME/MV School (3) (i) Before the end of the year the Inspector of Schools shall make an assessment of the number of vacancies to be occurred in the cadres of Headmaster/ Superintendent and to be filled up by promotion in the next year; (ii) The Inspector of Schools shall call particulars in the prescribed format of the eligible candidates/teachers for filling up of the vacancies through promotion. The Member- Secretary shall hold the process of the applications and submit them to the District Selection Committee; (iii) The District Selection Committee shall hold interview category wise and prepare a panel of select list double the number of vacancies of the concerned district; (iv) The select list so prepared by the District Selection Committee shall be submitted to the State Selection Board, The State Selection Board after necessary verification as may be required, shall prepare a district- wise select list equal to the number of vacancies and publish the same in the office notice Board or in such other places as the Director may consider fit and proper; (v) After publication of the select list, the Appointing Authority shall issue promotion order from the approved select list; (vi) The validity of the select list shall not exceed beyond one year from the date of its publication by the Director.” 10. The Rule, in clear terms has laid down that the said post would be filled up by promotion from Graduate Teachers on a district wise seniority list on the recommendation of the Selection Committee and the selection of Headmaster and Superintendent shall be based upon the seniority and satisfactory Annual Confidential Report for last 3 (three) consecutive years. The proviso to the aforesaid Rules has also clarified that the seniority of Graduate Teachers would be reckoned from the date of receiving graduate scale of pay by the respective Assistant Teachers. 11. The learned Standing Counsel has contended that Rule 14 (3) is also to be taken into consideration. While such contention may be correct, the criteria is laid down in 14 (1) and Rules 14 (3) is only the procedure to be followed as well as the eligibility conditions including as to how the nos. of vacancies are to be assessed and the particulars of the candidates to be taken into consideration. 12. It is not in dispute that the criteria for such promotion is the seniority and satisfactory Annual Confidential Report. 13. In all the writ petitions, there is a clear averment that the petitioners are senior to the private respondents in the Gradation List of the district in question, namely, Baksa. So far as WP(C)/1735/2024 is concerned where the affidavit-in- opposition has been filed, such statement has been made in paragraph 21. However, the said averments which forms the fulcrum of the present dispute has not been denied at all. Rather, in paragraph 6 of the said affidavit-in-opposition, the following statement has been made: “That as regard to the statements made in paragraph 19, 20 and 21 of the writ petition answering deponent begs to offer no comment.” 14. Since the stand of the decision making authorities which is on record has not disputed the very basis of the present challenge and the records placed before this Court would prima facie show that the petitioners are placed above the private respondents, this Court is of the opinion that a case for interference is made out. 15. However, considering that only 20 nos. 15. However, considering that only 20 nos. of petitioners are before this Court, it is directed that the cases of the petitioner be re-considered in terms of their seniority and the procedure laid down in the aforesaid Rule 14 and if they are found to be senior to any persons who have been selected, such persons have to give way to the petitioners to make their appointments. It is further clarified that since the Select List pertains to the entire Baksa district, the displacement has to be done from the bottom of the list of the selected candidates. 16. The aforesaid exercise be conducted within a period of 2 (two) months from today. 17. Writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.