1. The grievance expressed is against the G.I.A. Form No. 1 dated 29.7.1980 wherein the petitioners date of appointment in Dhenukhana High School, Lakhimpur is recorded as 1.1.1973 and his exit from the said post on 4.11.1974 to be replaced by Shree Purnananda Chetia. According to the petitioner, for the first time he had come across the above document in the year 2004. As his representations thereafter failed to evoke any response, he is before this court.

2. I have heard Mr. A. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. M. Gogoi Medhi, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. Though the respondent No. 5 has entered appearance and has filed his counter, none appears to represent him in the hearing today.

3. The abridged version of the petitioner is that, pursuant to the resolution No. 2 of the Managing Committee of the aforementioned school, he was appointed as a Graduate Assistant Teacher for Science and Mathematics. He joined the post on 1.12.1972. The school was provincialised on 23.2.1980. The petitioner has since his appointment been extended the service benefits on the basis of date of joining to be 1.1.1972. His Service Book has also been accordingly maintained. As the G.I.A. Form as above indicated the date of his appointment to be 1.1.1973 and further suggested that he is no longer in the post, he seeks judicial intervention so as to ensure the consequential service benefits without any hassle in future.

4. The respondent No. 3, Director of Secondary Education, Assam in his affidavit while affirming that the school had been provincialised on 23.2.1980, however, has contended that the petitioner had joined the institution on 1.1.1973 as Assistant Teacher against Half a Million Job Programme and continued till 4.11.1974 whereafter he resigned. In his place one Shri Purnananda Chetia was allowed to act with effect from 5.11.1974 in terms of the resolution of the Managing Committee taken on 4.11.1974. According to the answering respondent, no record or document is available to show the continuance of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher in the said school, but his name appeared in the list of the staff thereof at the time of provincialisation of the institution.

5. The Headmaster of the school, respondent No. 5 in his counter, reiterated the petitioners date of appointment in the school to be 1.1.1973. The deponent further stated that the petitioner serviced as a stipendiary teacher till 4.11.1974, whereafter pursuant to the Managing Committees resolution taken on 3.4.1996 one Shri Purnananda Chetia was appointed in the said capacity against his post. The answering respondent further admitted the absence of records relating to the appointment of Sri Hem Chandra Dutta, the petitioner against any post since 15.11.1974. He also admitted that at the time of provincialisation of the school, the services of the petitioner from 1.1.1973 to 4.11.1974 and that of Shri Purnananda Chetia from 5.11.1974 till 1997 respectively were regularized and were approved by the concerned Inspector of Schools. The Headmaster of the school, thus, sought to emphasize that the petitioner had ceased to serve as the Stipendiary Teacher/Assistant Teacher in the institution on and from 4.11.1974.

6. During the pendnecy of the writ petition, the office of the Headmaster of the school fell vacant and one Lankeswar Chirang was allowed to hold the charge there of pending finalization of the issue of inter se seniority between him and the petitioner.

7. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that it being apparent from the Service Book of the petitioner maintained in the official course of business, that he (petitioner) had joined the services of the school with effect from 1.12.1972 and is continuing since then without any break the entries in the impugned G.I.A. Form to the contrary are opposed to the contemporary records and, therefore, are liable to be adjudged as non-est in law. Judged by the date of appointment of the petitioner he being the senior most Assistant Teacher of the school, he ought to have been preferred for the office of the Headmaster thereof and therefore the arrangement of installing Sri Lankeswar Chirang who had joined in the year 1975 and is junior to him is untenable in law, he urged. Mr. Sarma contended that on the basis of the correct date of the petitioners joining the school and his continuance in the service, he is logically entitled to all consequential reliefs on the basis thereof.

8. Mrs. Gogoi Medhi in reply has submitted that even assuming that the petitioners date of appointment is 1.12.1972, he having been inducted initially as a stipendiary teacher under Half a Million Job Programme Scheme, his seniority for all intents and purposes is to be computed from 1.3.1978, and therefore, his preferential claim for the office of the Headmaster of the school over Lankeswar Chirang is clearly untenable. In support of her contention, the learned standing counsel has referred to rule 24(2)(iv) of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules, 2003 (`the Rules).

9. The rival pleadings and the arguments advanced have received the due consideration of this court. The official records produced by the learned standing counsel. Education Department amongst others contain the petitioners Service Book in original. It is evident therefrom that the petitioner had joined Dhenukhana High School, P.O. Dhenukhana as an Assistant Teacher on 1.12.1972 pursuant to the resolution No. 2 dated 15.11.72 of the Managing Committee thereof. The Service Book which has been maintained in the official course of business indicates that he continued in the said capacity and his services were accordingly provincialised with effect from 23.2.1980 vide DPI, Assams Order No. ESS-207/79/WT dated 31.3.1980. The Service Books which have been opened from time to time and maintained till 31.1.2005 demonstrate that the petitioner has continued in service in the school as Assistant Teacher. The relevant entries are endorsed by the Headmaster of the school. The plea of discontinuance from 4.11.1974 is thus clearly belied by the Service Books. The date of his joining the duty on 1.1.1973 as claimed by the respondents is also not borne out by the records. The entries in the G.I.A. Form No. 1 objected to by the petitioner cannot thus be sustained in face of the overwhelming entries in the Service Books. These are therefore interfered with. The date of appointment of the petitioner in the school would be construed to be 1.12.1972. So far as the challenge to the appointment of Lankeswar Chirang as the Headmaster in-charge of the school is concerned, suffice it to mention that he joined the school on 1.5.1975 as Graduate teacher. Even assuming that the petitioner was appointed on 1.12.1972 as has been determined hereinabove, the school being a provincialised school and governed by the Rules, his seniority has to be reckoned in terms of rule 24 thereof. The assertion made in the State counter that the petitioners initial appointment was as a stipendiary teacher under the Half a Million Job Programme scheme has remained uncontroverted till date. In that view of the matter, applying rule 24(2)(iii) his seniority is computable with effect from 1.3.1978. By applying that yardstick, the petitioner cannot be said to be senior to Lankeswar Chirang. As school seniority is normally taken to be the norm for the purpose of identifying the teacher for in-charge Headmastership of an institution/school governed by the Rules, the order permitting Lankeswar Chirang to hold the above office on in-charge basis is unassailable. The challenge to this effect fails.

10. The petition therefore is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No costs.