Page No.# 1/19 GAHC010058882024 2026:GAU-AS:7245 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1623/2024 RUNUMI PRIYA DEVI IN-CHARGE HEADMISTRESS, BARKOLA HIGH SCHOOL, UDALGURI, DIST.- UDALGURI, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE SECRETARY BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR. 3:THE SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 4:THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR ASSAM. 5:THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL Page No.# 2/19 KOKRAJHAR ASSAM. 6:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS UDALGURI DISTRICT CIRCLE UDALGURI. 7:TAPESWARI BARO D/O- PADMA BARO ASSISTANT TEACHER BARKHOLA HIGH SCHOOL UDALGURI DIST- UDALGURI. 8:THE SECRETARY EDUCATION DEPTT. CUM CHAIRMAN DEPARTMENTAL PROMOTION COMMITTEE BTC KOKRAJHAR BEFORE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN Advocate for the petitioner(s): Dr A Todi Advocate for the respondent(s): Mr B C Musahary SC, BTC Date on which judgment was reserved :NA Date of pronouncement of judgment :20.05.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : operative part of the judgment?: NA Whether the full judgment has been :Yes pronounced? Page No.# 3/19 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Dr A Todi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr B C Musahary, learned Standing Counsel for the BTC, representing the respondent No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8 and Ms S Konwar, learned Standing Counsel for the Elementary Education Department, representing the respondent No. 1 and Mr S Biswas, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7. 2. By this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing of the Select List dated 12.03.2024, issued by the Secretary, Bodoland Territorial Council, Kokrajhar. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 13.03.2024, issued by the Director of Education, BTC, by which the respondent No. 7 was promoted to the post of Headmistress of the Barkola High School, Udalguri. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to promote the petitioner to the post of Headmistress of the said school with all the service benefits, with a further direction that the authority should not give effect to the impugned Select List dated 12.03.2024 as well as the promotion order dated 13.03.2024, in respect of the said school. FACTS: 3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner had been appointed as an Assistant Teacher and posted at Barkola High School in the grade pay vide order dated 8th of December, 2010, and the said appointment had the approval of the Government of Assam, Education Department and was in consonance with the guidelines of the Finance (SIU) Department. Thereafter, the petitioner joined in the said post on 13.12.2010 as is reflected in the Joining Report, issued by the Headmaster of Barkola High School. Thereafter, the petitioner joined as In- Page No.# 4/19 charge Headmistress of the said school vide Joining Report dated 01.01.2024 and the said joining was in pursuance to the letter dated 22.12.2023, issued by the Director of Education, Kokrajhar. Before the said joining of the petitioner to the post of In-charge Headmistress, a provisional gradation list of Assistant Teachers of High Schools, under the Inspector of Schools, Udalguri District was prepared on the basis of the appointment order as well as the joining date and other factors and in the said provisional gradation list, the petitioner appeared at Serial No. 46 of the same and the respondent No. 7 at Serial No. 47 and that thereafter, a final gradation list in respect of the district of Udalguri was prepared on 16.12.2023, wherein the petitioner appeared at Serial No. 50 and respondent No. 7 at Sl. No. 51. 4. Thereafter, the Director of Education, BTC, Kokrajhar, had issued a notification on 14th of February, 2024, informing all the eligible candidates that an interview for promotion to the post of Headmaster and Headmistress of provincialized High Schools under Udalguri and other districts , which was supposed to be held on 19.02.2024, was re-scheduled and was fixed to be held on 20.02.2024. In pursuance to the same, the selection process was conducted and the select list was issued on 12.03.2024, wherein for the district of Udalguri, 35 numbers of candidates were selected for the post of Headmaster/Headmistress for the provincialized High Schools of the said district. It is stated by the petitioner that the petitioner did not figure in the said list. After publication of the said select list vide order dated 13th of March, 2024, a ceremonial distribution of promotion was directed to be held on 14.03.2024 and the selected candidates were called on the said date. 5. It is also the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 7 was although Page No.# 5/19 appointed on the same date as an Assistant Teacher and in the same school, i.e., vide order dated 8th of December, 2010, it is stated by the petitioner that the said respondent No. 7 joined as the Assistant Teacher in the said school, on 18th of December, 2010, i.e., 5 (five) days after the petitioner has joined in the said post. It is also stated by the petitioner by showing the provisional gradation list that respondent No. 7 was listed below the petitioner at Serial No. 47 of the said list and it is also seen in the final gradation list that the respondent No. 7 appeared below the petitioner at Serial No. 51 vide notification dated 16.12.2023. It is also the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was given to hold the post of In-charge Headmistress of Barkhola High School, by the order dated 22nd of December, 2023, by the Director of Education, BTC, Kokrajhar, since she was the seniormost Assistant Teacher of the said school. The petitioner, therefore, states that in the selection process in which she appeared, she should have been selected SUBMISSIONS:- 6. Dr A Todi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the selection done by the authorities was without following the Rules, i.e., Assam Secondary Education (Provincialized Schools) Service Rules, 2018 (hereinafter, referred to as Service Rules, 2018). He states that as per Rule 14 of the said Rules, the post of Headmaster of a high school, shall be filed up by promotion from amongst the graduate teachers as per the district-wise seniority list prepared on the recommendation of the District Selection Committee constituted under Rule 16 (2) of the Service Rules, 2018. He further submits that the criteria that has to be adopted for promotion/selection of Headmaster and Superintendent should be based on seniority and satisfactory annual confidential report for the Page No.# 6/19 last 3 (three) consecutive years as per procedure provided under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 14 of the Service Rules, 2018. He stated that this criteria was not followed during the selection process. He submits that although an interview is required to be held as per Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 14 of the Service Rules, 2018, and the select list has to be prepared double the number of the vacancies of the concerned district, but the criteria as mentioned in Rule 14 (1) of the Service Rules, 2018, has to be followed strictly. The learned counsel, by referring to the affidavit filed by the BTC, had stated that an interview was held, of all the candidates, applying for the post of Headmaster, including the petitioner and marks were given to them and it is stated by the BTC authorities that respondent No. 7 got 50 marks and the petitioner got 35 marks less than respondent No. 7, out of total 80 marks. He, as such, submits that the procedure adopted by the DPC is incorrect and the said criteria not being adopted, the said selection of respondent No. 7 by depriving the petitioner was illegal. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the BTC submits that the departmental promotion committee has clarified in its affidavit and has stated that although a Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted, but it served the same purpose as District Promotion Committee as referred under Rule 16 (4) and Rule 14 of the Service Rules, 2018. He further submits that the said DPC for the promotion to the post of Headmaster/Headmistress in provincialized High Schools, held a meeting on 04.03.2024, wherein 35 numbers of candidates were selected for promotion to the said post of Headmaster/Headmistress for the entire district of Udalguri, by allotting marks to all the candidates. He also stated that the petitioner having obtained lesser marks than respondent No. 7, the respondent No. 7 was selected and the Page No.# 7/19 petitioner could not be selected for the said post. The learned counsel further submits that although the petitioner was senior to respondent No. 7, but the Department of Education after evaluating the various considerations of the candidates, gave precedence to the candidates having both seniority-cum- efficiency as seniority is not the only sufficient criteria for the said promotion. It is further stated that Headmaster has to maintain protocol of duties and responsibilities to keep a dignified atmosphere of the school and on merit based promotion for candidates, who have qualities of exceptional performance was considered, and respondent No. 7 was selected. 8. Mr S Biswas, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7, submits that Rule 14 of the Service Rules, 2018 was followed and interview was held and in the said interview, the performance of the candidates were evaluated and the select list was prepared. He submits that the prayer of the petitioner as well as the pleadings in the said writ petition were different to what the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court. He states that the prayer was for setting aside the entire select list, which, however, cannot be done in view of the fact that there are many junior candidates to the petitioner, who were appointed to the post of Headmaster in different schools within the same district and that the petitioner has challenged only the appointment of respondent No. 7. He submits that since the petitioner and the respondent No 7 were working in the same school, the challenge is made, however, he submits that the appointment has to be done in different schools within the said district and the incumbents in the same school will not matter. He further submits that although the exercise for promotion to the post of Headmaster under Rule 14 (1) of the Service Rules, 2018 has to be done on the recommendation of the District Selection Committee constituted under Rule 16 (2), however, in the instant case, Page No.# 8/19 the same was done by District Promotion Committee, and the members constituting the District Promotion Committee are the same as that of the members, which have to be present in the District Selection Committee. He also raised the issue non-maintainability of the instant petition, on the ground that having challenged the entire select list, the other candidates were not made party respondents. To substantiate his arguments, he has relied on the following Judgments: i) (1990) 1 SCC 305; Dalpat Abasaheb Solunke. ii) (1994) 2 SCC 117; Om Prakash Poplai & Rajesh Kr. Maheswari -vs- Delhi Stock Exchange Association Ltd. & Others. iii) (1995) 3 SCC 486; Madan Lal & Others -Vs- State of J & K & Others. iv) (2004) 4 SCC 657; Reserve Bank of India & Others -Vs- C.L. Toora & Others. v) (2007) 8 SCC 644; Trivedi Himanshu Ghansyambhai -vs- Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn. & Others. vi) (2008) 2 SCC 119; M.V. Thimmaiah & Ors. vs. UPSC & Ors. vii) (2013) 4 SCC 619; Sadananda Halo & Ors. vs. Md. Mainul Haque Chowdhury & Ors. viii) (2013) 11 SCC 309; Ramesh Chandra Shah & Others vs. Anil Joshi & Others. ix) (2023) 17 SCC 147; Tajvir Singh Sodhi & Ors. -vs- State of Jammu and Kashmir & Others. 9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and I have also Page No.# 9/19 gone through the records. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS: 10. At the outset, since the issue involved in the instant petition is for selection to the post of Headmaster of the schools district-wise and the relevant law governing the said subject is Rule 14 of the Service Rules, 2018, Rule 14 is quoted hereinbelow:- “Rule - 14. Recruitment to the post of Headmaster/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 'Nishanat' shall be considered instead of B.T./B.Ed; (b) He must have at least 10 years of teaching experience as Graduate Teacher: Page No.# 10/19 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 Headmaster 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 Page No.# 11/19 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.” A bare perusal of the said rule makes it clear that promotion which should be selection to the post of Headmaster should be done amongst the Graduate Teachers, as per the district-wise seniority list, prepared on the recommendation of the District Selection Committee constituted under Rule 16 (2) of the Service Rules, 2018. Rule 16 (2) may again be referred at this juncture. Rule 16 (2) of the Service Rules, 2018 provides that there shall be a District Selection Committee for each district for selection of Headmaster as well as other posts and the said committee would be constituted with 6 (six) members mentioned therein. Rule 16 (2) of the Service Rules, 2018 is quoted hereinbelow:- Rule 16 (2): There shall be a District Selection Committee in each District for selection of Principal, Headmaster, Superintendent, Post Graduate Teacher, Graduate Teacher, Under Graduate Teacher, Junior Assistant, Library Assistant as follows:- (i) Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district or his nominee, not below the rank of an Additional Deputy Commissioner Chairman; (ii) Inspector of Schools Member- secretary; (iii) One retired Principal/Headmaster or an officer under State Education Service to be nominated by Deputy Commissioner Member. (iv) One Principal of a Higher Secondary or Senior Member. Page No.# 12/19 Secondary School to be nominated by the Inspector of School (v) One Headmaster of a High School or Superintendent of a High Madrassa to be nominated by the Inspector of School Member (vi) In addition to above, there shall be a Subject Expert in case of selection of Post Graduate Teacher and Graduate Teacher, wherever necessary; Explanation: Atleast one member should belong to SC/ST community and one member should be women. 11. It is further provided under Rule 14 (1) that the criteria to be applied for the selection of the Headmaster is that the seniority along with satisfactory annual confidential reports for the last three consecutive years and it is also provided that the procedure should be followed as provided under Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 14 of the Service Rules, 2018. Sub-Rule (3) provides amongst others that District Selection Committee shall hold an interview category-wise and prepare a panel of select lists, double the number of vacancies for each district. The duty to prepare the select list was saddled on the District Selection Committee. The said provision is in consonance with Rule 14 (1) of the Service Rules, 2018, which also provides that on the recommendation of the District Selection Committee, a seniority list would be prepared for the promotion/selection to the post of Headmaster. In the instant case, however, it is seen that the Seniority list, i.e., the final gradation list of Assistant Teachers published on 16.12.2023, reflected the name of the petitioner at Serial No. 50 and by following the mandate of law, i.e., Rule 14 (1) of the Service Rules, 2018, the promotion/selection to the post of Headmaster should be considered from the seniority list prepared on the recommendation of the District Selection Page No.# 13/19 Committee, along with 3 years consecutive satisfactory Annual Confidential Reports of the candidates. Further, the District Selection Committee is mandated to hold an interview and prepare a select list. Since the requirement for selection to the post of Headmaster is provided for in Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 14 of the Service Rules, 2018 and the same should be based on seniority and satisfactory annual confidential report for the last three consecutive years, it is a normal corollary that the District Selection Committee would consider the same while holding the interview by virtue of Sub-Rule (3) of Rule 14 of the Service Rules, 2018 and allot marks on the basis thereof. As per the said provisions, it is as such, required that the District Selection Committee would hold an interview and prepare the select list double the number of vacancies of the concerned district. However, the said select list, which is prepared by the District Selection Committee is not on record. It is further provided in Sub-Rule (3), Clause-IV of Rule 14 of the Rules that the select list so prepared by the District Selection Committee shall be submitted to the State Selection Board, and the State Selection Board, after necessary verification, is required to prepare the district- wise select list equal to the number of vacancies and publish the same in the notice board and pursuant to the publication of the said select list, the appointing authority shall issue promotion orders as provided under Sub-Rule (3) Clause-V of Rule 14 of Rules, 2018. 12. 12. It is stated in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 4, i.e., the BTC that the BTC authorities had constituted a Departmental Promotion Committee on 01.02.2021 for the purpose of promotion to the post of Heaster/Headmistress and the Departmental Promotion Committee by holding a meeting on 04.03.2024, recommended 35 numbers of candidates for promotion to the post of Headmaster/Headmistress of High Schools for the district of Page No.# 14/19 Udalguri and it is further stated that the said departmental promotion committee had conducted an interview by forming four numbers of interview boards and by taking into consideration, factors, such as, service experience, ACR, performance in the personal interview, and gave marks to the various candidates and that finally, 35 numbers of candidates out of 77 numbers of candidates, who appeared in the interview were selected. It is further stated that the petitioner had got less marks and as such, she was not selected for the post of Headmaster. In the said affidavit, the respondent had also stated that the Departmental Promotion Committee constituted for the purpose of promotion, had served the same purpose as the District Promotion Committee. 13. However, the said exercise conducted either by the Departmental Promotion Committee or as stated by the respondent, the District Promotion Committee was not as per the law provided in Service Rules of 2018. As per the Service Rules of 2018, what is required is that the District Selection Committee formed under Rule 16 Sub-Rule (2) of the said Rules, would prepare a select list double the number of vacancies and submit it before the State Selection Board. In the instant case, it was the departmental promotion committee or the District Promotion Committee, where again a difference lies, had prepared the select list and published the same and on the said basis, selection and promotion was made. Be it stated here that although the said law point was not raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, neither it was a pleaded case, but the same being an issue on law point, it is raised and entertained by this Court. 14. Further, the contention of the BTC authorities that the Departmental Promotion Committee had served the same purpose as the District Promotion Committee, can also be not accepted, in view of the exercise that needs to be done, is by the District Selection Committee, which is constituted under Rule Page No.# 15/19 16(2) of the Service Rules, 2018. Even if this Court considers that District Promotion Committee had done the exercise, the same is also not acceptable, in view of the fact that the duties of the District Promotion Committee are enshrined under Rule 15 of Service Rules, 2018, where the District Promotion Committee is required to recommend for promotion to the post of Assistant Headmaster as well as Assistant Superintendent. The District Promotion Committee has got nothing to do with promotion to the post of Headmaster or Superintendent and it is only the District Selection Committee who has to conduct. 15. Further, it is provided that the District Selection Committee after preparing the list of candidates double the number of vacancies should submit it before the State Selection Board. It is seen that the said exercise has not been gone into and on the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee or the District Promotion Committee, the said list was published. It was not placed before the State Selection Board. It is seen in the instant case that the Secretary of Bodoland Territorial Council, Kokrajhar, by letter to the Director of Education, Bodoland Territorial Council, Kokrajhar, had intimated that an approval was received from the BTC for promotion of the candidates district wise vide letter dated 12th of March, 2024. It is nowhere reflected that the select list so prepared by the Committee, who conducted the interview, which according to this Court, was bad, was at all placed before the State Selection Board. However, to this, an argument is placed that the Director of Education, BTC, is the concerned authority in the Bodoland Territorial Council to issue the select list instead of State Selection Board. However, in the instant case, it is absent as to whether the select list prepared double the number of vacances were placed before the Director, BTC and the Director, BTC (Bodoland Territorial Page No.# 16/19 Council), had issued the final select list equal to the number of vacancies. The said exercise having not gone into, the selection made by the respondent authorities is not correct in the considered view of this Court. 16. Further, the argument made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7 that the select list cannot be interfered in the absence of other selected candidates being made parties in the instant writ petition, the same is negated in view of the settled position of law held by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The Apex Court in the case of A Janardhana -Vs- Union of India & Others; reported in (1983) 3 SCC 601, had held as follows:- “It was contended that those members who have scored a march over the appellant in 1974 seniority list having not been impleaded as respondents, no relief can be given to the appellants. In the writ petition filed in the High Court, there were in all 418 respondents. Amongst them, first two were Union of India and Engineer-in- Chief, Army Headquarters, and the rest presumably must be those shown senior to the appellants. By an order made by the High Court, the names of respondents 3 to 418 were deleted since notices could not be served on them on account. Of the difficulty in ascertaining their present addresses on their transfers subsequent to the filing of These petitions. However, it clearly appears that some direct recruits led by Mr. Chitkara appeared through counsel Shri Murlidhar Rao and had made the submissions on behalf of the direct recruits. Further any application was made to this Court by 9 direct recruits led by Shri T. Sudhakar for being impleaded as parties, which application was granted and Mr. P. R. Mridul, learned senior counsel appeared for them. Therefore, the case of direct recruits has not gone unrepresented and the contention can be negatived on the short ground. However, there is a more cogent reason why we would not countenance this contention. In this case, appellant does not claim seniority over particular individual in the background of any particular fact controverted by that person against whom the claim is made. The contention is that criteria adopted by the Union Government in drawing-up the impugned seniority list are invalid and illegal and the relief is claimed against the Union Government Page No.# 17/19 restraining it from upsetting or quashing the already drawn up valid list and for quashing the impugned seniority list. Thus, the relief is claimed against the Union Government and not against any particular individual. In this background, we consider it unnecessary to have all direct recruits to be impleaded as respondents. We may in this connection refer to General Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad & Anr. etc. v. A.V.R.Sidhanti and ors. etc.(l) Repelling a contention on behalf of the appellant that the writ petitioners did not implead about 120 employees who were likely to be affected by the decision in this case, this Court observed that the respondents (original petitioners) are impeaching the validity of those policy decisions on the ground of their being violative of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The proceedings are analogous to those in which the constitutionality of a statutory rule regulating the seniority of government servants is assailed. In such proceedings, the necessary parties to be impleaded are these against whom the relief is sought, and in whose absence no effective decision can be rendered by the Court. Approaching the matter from this angle, it may be noticed that relief is sought only against the Union of India and the concerned Ministry and not against any individual nor any seniority is claimed by anyone individual against another particular individual and therefore, even if technically the direct recruits were not before the Court, the petition is not likely to fail on that ground. The contention of the respondents for this additional reason must also be negatived.” 17. It is as such, seen that since the petitioner has not claimed any relief against the other candidates in the select list, except Respondent No. 7, who is heard at length the said select list can be held as bad if the law is not followed. In the instant case, as has explained above, the provisions of Service Rules, 2018, were not followed in making selections to the post of Headmaster to various schools in the district. The respondent authorities, both in submissions and in provisions, had further used the term promotion and selection interchangeably, whereas in the instant case, it will be selection to the post of Headmaster. Page No.# 18/19 18. It be stated here that the aforesaid case of A Janardhana (supra) has been followed in later cases by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as by the High Courts. However, in one of the judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sanjay Prakash and others -Vs- Union of India & Others; reported in (2021) 9 SCC 79, had distinguished the case of A Janardhana (supra) in the facts of the said case and has held as follows:- “Argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners is that the applicants are not necessary or proper parties in this set of proceedings. The petitioners are seeking directions for amendments of a set of existing Rules and office memoranda, which provide for, inter alia, filling up of certain percentage of senior administrative grade posts by deputation. Relief is sought here against the arm concerned of the Union Government over framing of service rules that would have the effect of, among other change in service structure, entail IPS officers from holding the senior positions of the respective Forces on deputation. But as I have already observed, by filing these applications, the applicants are volunteering their participation in these petitions to highlight their grievances. Thus, the ratio of A. Janardhana, which dealt with the aspects of leaving out a set of persons from whose interest could be affected by the outcome of a case, cannot be applied in this set of proceedings.” As such, it is noticed that without the other candidates being made a party in the instant writ proceedings, the select list can be held to be bad. As such, the Select List approval of which was communicated by a letter dated 12.03.2024, issued by the Secretary to the Bodoland Territorial Council, addressed to the Director of Education, BTC, Kokrajhar, in respect of Udalguri District, is hereby set aside with all necessary consequential orders. The concerned authorities are further directed to hold the selection process for the said district within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order. 19. Since it is stated that the petitioner is working as the In-Charge Page No.# 19/19 Headmaster of the school, the said position may not be disturbed till fresh selection is held. 20. Be that as it may, in the instant case, the petitioner has raised the issue of his non-appointment to the post of Headmaster in spite of her eligibility. This Court finds it fit to direct the authorities to consider the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Headmaster/Headmistress in a high school within the district by following the criteria provided under the Rules as well as the seniority list by holding a selection and after conducting the necessary exercises as per law. This order is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, since the Rules are not being followed and the petitioner should not suffer for that. 21. Petition is disposed of. 22. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. 23. No order as to cost(s). JUDGE Comparing Assistant