Michael Zothankhuma, J.

Heard Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. S.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5.

2. The petitioner prays for setting aside the order dated 10.04.2018 issued by the District Elementary Education Officer, Goalpara, hereinafter referred to as the 'DEEO', Goalpara, by which the respondent No. 5 has been allowed to act as the In-charge Headmaster of Tukura M.E. School, along with delegation of financial power to draw and disburse the monthly salary bill and other transactions of the school. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 10.04.2018 on the ground that the respondent No. 5 does not have the eligibility criteria to be considered for promotion to the post of Headmaster and accordingly, he could not have been given the charge of Headmaster of the school.

3. The petitioner's counsel submits that as the regular Headmaster of the school was going to retire on 28.2.2018. the DEEO, Goalpara wrote a letter dated 23.11.2017 to the outgoing Headmaster, asking him to handover all the charges of the school to the next senior most and qualified teacher of the school. Thus, as the post of In-charge Headmaster would have to be given to the senior most teacher of the School, who was also qualified to be considered for promotion to the said post, the outgoing Headmaster of the school handed over the charge of Headmaster to the petitioner. The petitioner's counsel submits that as the respondent No. 5 has not undergone the necessary training, as required under the Procedures for Promotion to the post of Headmaster of M.E. Schools, as notified by the Elementary Education Department, Government of Assam, vide notification dated 02.03.2010, the respondent No. 5 cannot be made the in-charge Headmaster of the school.

4. The petitioner's counsel submits that though there is no dispute to the fact that the respondent No. 5 is senior to the petitioner as a teacher of the school during its venture stage, the service period of the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 as graduate teachers is the same after provincialisation of the School. He also submits that as the petitioner was placed under suspension from the period from 13.10.2008 till 03.03.2015, there is a taint/stigma attached to the service of the respondent No. 5 and accordingly, there was no infirmity in the handing over the charge of Headmaster to the petitioner, by the outgoing Headmaster, who retired on 28.02.2018. He also submits that the handing over charge of Headmaster has been done on the basis of a resolution taken by the School Managing Committee, hereinafter referred to as the 'SMC', on 28.02.2018, which is under challenge and accordingly, the petitioner has been holding the charge of the Headmaster w.e.f. on 1.3.2018. He also submits that an in-charge Headmaster cannot be replaced by another in-charge Headmaster as this is only a temporary arrangement. He also submits that no notice was issued to the petitioner prior to the impugned order dated 10.4.2018, by which the respondent No. 5 has been allowed to act as the in-charge Headmaster of the school.

5. Mr. S.K. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 submits that the service books of the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 clearly show that the respondent No. 5 is senior in service. He also submits that as per Rule 4 of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Service and Conduct Rules, 1981, hereinafter referred to as the " 1981 Rules", the requirement of having undergone training is done away with on confirmation of service, provided the teacher has completed 45 years of age and completed 3 years of service after provincialisation, during which time no facility was provided for the prescribed training. He thus submits that as the service of the respondent No. 5 was confirmed as a teacher, there was no further requirement for undergoing the prescri