Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010114492026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/1917/2026 FARIZ UDDIN S/O BAHA UDDIN,VILLAGE- SINGERBOND PART-IV,P.O. SINGERBOND,DISTRICT- CACHAR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE COMMISSIONER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM FINANCE DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19. 4:THE STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE CACHAR REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19. 5:THE DISTRICT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE CACHAR REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER DEPUTY COMMISSION CACHAR Page No.# 2/6 ASSAM. 6:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER CACHAR CUM MEMBER SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE CACHAR PO AND PS SILCHAR DIST CACHAR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BARBHUIYA, MS A BEGUM Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, ELEM. EDU BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR ORDER 08.06.2026 Heard Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Ms. N. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel for Elementary Education. 2. This I.A. has been filed seeking correction of an inadvertent typographical error in the order dated 29.05.2026 passed in WP(C) No. 4928/2025, to the extent that in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 thereof, the concerned respondent has been described as the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of Secondary Education whereas the said respondent ought to have been described as the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education. 3. Since the correction of the typographical error does not affect the merits of Page No.# 3/6 the case, the prayer made in the application is allowed. Accordingly, the order dated 29.05.2026 passed in WP(C) No. 4928/2025 shall now read as follows: “Heard Mr. A.M. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. N. Phukan, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education for the respondent nos. 1, 3, 4 & 6; Mr. A. Chaliha, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 and Ms. K. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent no.5. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although the petitioner had been recommended twice for provincialisation by the DLC to the SLC as a Grade-IV employee in Singerbond M.E. Madrassa (School), Cachar, there has been no finalization of the aforesaid proposals till date. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that under similar circumstances, this Court, by order dated 16.07.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 2631 of 2025, had directed as under: “8. In view of the above position, the petitioners are hereby required to submit individual representations before the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education, along with a certified copy of this order, staking their claim for provincialisation of their services by highlighting the steps that has been taken in this connection by the Page No.# 4/6 respondent authorities. 9. The Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education, on receipt of such representations from the petitioners, shall consider the same along with the contemporaneous records and on such consideration, it is found that the case of the petitioners was not considered by the SLSC; require the placing of the case of the petitioners before the SLSC for scrutiny of their service particulars. Thereafter, in the event, the SLSC proceeds to favourably recommend the cases of all or any of the petitioners, the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education, shall take further steps for provincialisation of the services of the petitioners. 10. In the event, it is found that the petitioners are not entitled to the benefits of the provincialisation of their services, the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education, shall, issue speaking orders, in respect of each of the petitioners and therein disclose the reasons for which the petitioners were denied provincialisation of their services. The speaking order be communicated to each of the petitioners. 11. The above exercise as now required to be carried out by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education, be so initiated and completed within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 12. With the above directions and observations, the writ petition stands Page No.# 5/6 disposed of.” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievance of the petitioner would stand redressed in the event similar directions are issued by this Court. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Department of Education does not object to the prayer of the petitioner for filing of a representation to be considered and disposed of in accordance with law, in terms of the orders passed under similar circumstances by this Court. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to submit an application/representation before the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education, along with a certified copy of this order, raising his claim for provincialisation of service and highlighting the steps already taken in that regard by the respondent authorities. 7. On receipt of such representation, the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education shall consider the same along with the contemporaneous records. In the event it is found that the petitioner was not properly considered by the SLC, the case of the petitioner shall be placed before the SLC for necessary scrutiny. 8. In the event the SLC thereafter recommends the case of the petitioner, the Secretary, Government of Assam, Department of Page No.# 6/6 School Education shall take further steps for provincialisation of the petitioner’s services. 9. In the event the findings of the SLC are not favourable to the petitioner, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of such decision. 10. The aforesaid exercise, in all respects, shall be completed by the respondent authorities within an outer limit of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.” 4. This order shall be read as part of the order passed in WP(C) No. 4928/2025 and kept on record. 5. Since the correction has been made today, the time frame stipulated in the order dated 29.05.2026 shall stand extended accordingly. JUDGE Comparing Assistant