Page No.# 1/15 GAHC010215282021 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6992/2021 DIPANKER BORUAH S/O- NUMOL BORAH, R/O VILLAGE- KACHAMARI DAKHIN NEGHERI PATHAR, P.O- KACHAMARI, P.S- MERAPANI, SUB-DIVISION- GOLAGHAT, DIST- GOLAGHAT VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REP BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECONDARY DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY-06 2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GHY-19 KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. 3:THE DISTRICT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE GOLAGHAT DISTRICT REP BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GOLAGHAT DISTRICT 4:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER GOLAGHAT DISTRICT 5:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER GOLAGHAT WEST ELEMENTARY EDUCATION BLOCK BOKAKHAT 6:SRI NIRMAL KACHARI AND NIRMALI KACHARI Page No.# 2/15 TUTOR (ERSTWHILE HEAD MASTER) NAVAJYOTI MISSING GAON ME SCHOOL VILL- KACHAMARI DAKHIN NEGHERI PATHAR P.O- KACHAMARI P.S- MERAPANI SUB- DIVISION- GOLAGHAT DIST GOLAGHAT (ASSAM) 7:MOHESWAR GOGOI TUTOR NAVAJYOTI MISSING GAON ME SCHOOL VILL- KACHAMARI DAKHIN NEGHERI PATHAR P.O- KACHAMARI P.S- MERAPANI SUB- DIVISION- GOLAGHAT DIST GOLAGHAT (ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K DAS, M N KHAN Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MS. P BORAH (R-6,7),MR P H KONWAR (r-6,7),MR H P NEPAL (r-6,7),MR S BORTHAKUR (r-6,7),SC, ELEM. EDU BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 11.06.2026 Heard Mr. B K Das, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Ms. P Borah, Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 6 & 7. 2. This Court had, vide order dated 27.05.2026, required the Learned Standing Counsel, Department of School Education, Assam, to produce the orders passed by the Appellate Authority, in pursuance to the directions passed by this Court, vide order dated 27.09.2022, in WP(C) No. 3480/2021. In the first half, when the matter was taken up, there was no representation on Page No.# 3/15 behalf of the Department of School Education, Assam. The matter was accordingly adjourned to be taken up in the second half. When the matter is called up in the second half, still there is no representation, on behalf of the Department of School Education, Assam. The absence of the Learned Standing Counsel, Department of School Education, Assam, leads this Court to presume that the Department has got nothing further to add in the matter. Accordingly, this Court is now proceeding to consider the issue, arising in the present Writ Petition, on its merits. 3. The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, has assailed the provincialisation, effected, in respect of the Respondent No. 6 & 7, in Navajyoti Missing Gaon M.E School. The Petitioner has projected that he was appointed in the said School by the School Managing Committee, vide an order dated 02.03.2005. The Petitioner joined his services in the said School on 02.03.2005 itself. The Petitioner further projects that he was teaching the subject Social Studies, to the students in the School, since the date of his initial engagement. The Petitioner further projects that the Respondent No. 6, Smt. Nirmali Kachari, who was functioning as the Head-Mistress of the School, was also teaching the subject of English and the Respondent No. 7, Sri. Maheshwar Gogoi was teaching the subject Hindi. The Petitioner has further contended in the Writ Petition that the School, being found eligible for provincialisation of Page No.# 4/15 the services of the Teachers in the said School, under the provisions of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017, (as amended), the Head-Mistress of the said School i.e. Respondent No. 6, had forwarded the particulars of the Teachers of the School to the concerned Departmental authorities for placing before the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee. The jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee, on scrutinizing the service particulars of the teachers of the School, had recommended the names of Respondent No. 6 & 7, for provincialisation of their services. Thereafter, the recommendation of the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee, being processed in the manner, as mandated under the provisions of Act of 2017, the services of Respondent No. 6 & 7, came to be provincialised in the said School. The service of the Petitioner not being provincialised, being aggrieved, he has instituted the present Writ Petition. 4. Mr. B K Das, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, after reiterating the facts noticed hereinabove, has, by referring to the particulars of the Teachers working in the said School, as forwarded by the Respondent No. 6, herein, submitted that in the said particulars, the Respondent No. 6 had projected herself, to be teaching the subject English, in addition to being the Head- Page No.# 5/15 Mistress of the said School. Further, the Respondent No. 7 was shown to be working as a Hindi Teacher. The Petitioner was shown, therein, to be working as a Social Studies Teacher. Accordingly, he submits that in view of the provisions of Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act of 2017, the services of a Teacher, teaching the subject Social Studies, being mandatorily required to be provincialised, the services of the Petitioner, ought to have been provincialised, before provincialising the services of the Respondent No. 7. He submits that even if the services of Respondent No. 6 is provincialised, by considering her to be a Language Teacher, inasmuch as, she was teaching the subject English in the School, in addition to being working as the Head-Mistress in the said School, the services of the Respondent No. 7, under no circumstances, was mandated to be so provincialised, inasmuch as, he was teaching the subject Hindi and Hindi being not grouped together with the other language subjects like Assamese, English, Bodo, Bengali etc, the Respondent No. 7 was not a Language teacher. 5. In the above premises, Mr. B K Das, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the provincialisation, effected in respect of the Respondent No. 7, would mandate interference from this Court. 6. Ms. P Borah, Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 6 & 7, Page No.# 6/15 was put a query by this Court, at the outset, to the effect, as to whether the list of particulars of the Teachers, working in the said School, prepared under the signature of the Respondent No. 6, was denied by her. Ms. P Borah, Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 6 & 7, has fairly submitted the said list has not been disputed by the Respondent No. 6. Ms. P Borah, Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 6 & 7, further submits that the Respondent No. 6, although was appointed as the Head-Mistress in the said School, she continued to teach the subject English to the students and accordingly, she must be deemed to be a Language teacher in the said School. Accordingly, she submits that provincialisation of the services of the Respondent No. 6, would not mandate an interference by this Court. 7. With regard to the provincialisation, effected in respect of the Respondent No. 7, Ms. P Borah, Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos. 6 & 7, has submitted that Respondent No. 7, was teaching Hindi subject. The Hindi subject is deemed to be a compulsory subject in the Upper Primary School, in the State of Assam and accordingly, the services of the incumbent, teaching the said subject, must mandatorily be provincialised, in order to facilitate the students studying in the School, to continue to receive their learning, in the Hindi subject. Accordingly, she submits that the Hindi subject being a special subject, the provincialisation of the Respondent No. 7, therein, Page No.# 7/15 by considering the special status accorded to the Hindi subject in an Upper Primary School, would not mandate an interference. She further submits that for recognition/permission of an Upper Primary School, a Teacher teaching the subject Hindi is mandatorily required to be so included in the list of Teacher appointed in a Upper Primary School in question, otherwise, the School would be denied the recognition, as well as permission. 8. Mr. P N Sarma, Learned Standing Counsel, Department of Elementary Education, Assam, while the Court was dictating the order, had joined the proceedings and has submitted that the name of the Petitioner, not being recognized by the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee, further processing of the matter in his case, was not permissible to be done. He submits that the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee had construed the Respondent No. 6, to be a Teacher teaching the all the subjects, including the subject of Social Studies, in the School and the Respondent No. 7 was found to be teaching the subject Hindi, which is a special subject. Accordingly, the services of the Respondent No. 6, was recommended for provincialisation as against the subject Social Studies, while the Respondent No. 7, was so recommended for provincialisation against the subject Hindi. 9. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and perused the Page No.# 8/15 materials available on record. 10. From the materials brought on record, as well as the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the Parties, this Court finds that the issue arising for consideration in the present Writ Petition, pertains to the eligibility of the Respondent No. 6 & 7, for having their services provincialised, ignoring the case of the Petitioner, herein. As projected by Mr. P N Sarma, Learned Standing Counsel, Department of Education (Elementary), Assam, the District Scrutiny Committee had construed the Respondent No. 6, to be teaching all the subjects in the School and accordingly, she was treated to have been teaching the subject Social Studies and accordingly, her services were so provincialised as a Social Studies Subject Teacher. The Respondent No. 7 is projected to be so provincialised in his services by construing him to be teaching the subject Hindi. 11. At this stage, this Court would take notice of the provisions of Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act of 2017. The said provisions being relevant is extracted hereinbelow : “3. Eligibility criteria for selection of educational institution for provincialisation of services of teachers/tutors:- (1) Subject to the provisions of Article 30 of the Constitution of India, the following categories Page No.# 9/15 of Venture Educational Institutions shall be eligible for being considered for provincialisation of the services of their teachers and tutors:- …………… ………………………………………………… ………………………………………………… (xi) In case of Venture Upper Primary School there shall be minimum three teachers or tutors at least one teacher each for (a) Science and Mathematics (b) Social Studies and (c) Languages: Provided that for additional posts it shall be considered in accordance with the norms and standard stipulated in the Schedule under Sections 19 and 25 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Central Act No. 35 of 2009);” 12. A perusal of the main provisions of Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act of 2017, would go to reveal that in respect of a Venture Upper Primary School, services of minimum 3 (Three) teachers or tutors, are mandated to be so provincialised. Amongst the 3 (Three) teachers or tutors, whose services are to be so provincialised, the teachers, teaching the subjects of Science & Mathematics, Social Studies and Language, are to be included. Page No.# 10/15 13. While Mr. P N Sarma, Learned Standing Counsel, Department of Elementary Education, Assam, has projected that the District Scrutiny Committee had construed Smt. Nirmali Kachari i.e. Respondent No. 6, functioning as the Head-Mistress, to be also teaching the Social Studies subject and accordingly, her services was provincialised, as a Teacher teaching Social Studies subject, this Court finds that in the list of particulars of Teachers of the School, prepared under the signature of the Respondent No. 6 herself, for the purpose of placing before the Departmental authorities, for consideration towards provincialisation of the services of the Teachers working in the School, she had, therein, projected herself to be teaching the subject English. The projections made in the said list of Teachers, has not been disputed by the Learned Counsel representing the Respondent No. 6. 14. Accordingly, this Court would proceed to hold that the Respondent No. 6, having projected herself to be teaching the subject English, was provincialised by construing her to be teaching the Language subject in the said School and, in terms of the provisions of Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act of 2017, it is to be held that the Respondent No. 6, was so provincialised against the requirement of provincialising the services of a Language teacher, teaching in the said School. Accordingly, the provincialisation of the Respondent No. 6, being found to be in tune with the provisions of Section 3 Page No.# 11/15 (1) (xi) of the Act of 2017, in the considered view of this Court, the challenge presented by the Petitioner, to such provincialisation, effected in respect of the Respondent No. 6, would not mandate an interference and the said challenge stands rejected. 15. Having drawn the said conclusions, this Court would now consider the challenge presented by the Petitioner to the provincialisation, effected in respect of the Respondent No. 7. As noticed hereinabove, the Respondent No. 7, is projected by all the parties to be teaching the subject Hindi in the said School. Mr. P N Sarma, Learned Standing Counsel, Department of Elementary Education, Assam, has contended that the subject Hindi has been grouped together with the other language subjects like English, Assamese, Bodo, Bengali etc. The said contention, if to be accepted, the Respondent No. 6, being now held to have been provincialised as a Language teacher, in the said School, it would occasion that services of 2 (two) Language teachers, came to be provincialised. Such a position would be in violation of the main provision of the Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act of 2017 and accordingly the said position cannot be permitted to be continued with. 16. This Court further notices the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the Respondents, to the effect that Hindi being a compulsory Page No.# 12/15 subject, required to be taught in Upper Primary School of the State of Assam, services of a Teacher teaching the subject Hindi, in a venture Educational Institution, must necessarily be provincialised. This Court has perused the provisions of the Act of 2017 and does not find, therein, any stipulation made to the said effect. In the School in question, given the student enrollment position, services of only 3 (three) teachers was mandated to be provincialised as Teachers and/or tutors, in terms of the provisions of Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act of 2017. Hindi not being a specified subject, in the provisions of Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act of 2017, the contentions raised by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 7, stands rejected, on finding the same to be contrary to the positions of the Act of 2017. 17. This Court further notices that in terms of the provisions of Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act of 2017, services of Social Studies Teacher, is mandatorily required to be provincialised. This Court finds from the list of particulars forwarded by the Respondent No. 6, that the Petitioner was the only person teaching the subject Social Studies in the School, when it was in its venture stage. Accordingly, this Court holds that the Services of the Petitioner was mandatorily required to be so provincialised, in compliance with the provisions of Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act of 2017. Page No.# 13/15 18. In view of the above discussion, the Respondent No. 7, having been found by this Court, to have been provincialised, in violation of the provisions of the Act of 2017 and the Petitioner, herein, having been also found to have been deprived of provincialisation of his services, in violation to the provisions of the Act of 2017, more particularly the provisions of Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act of 2017, this Court proceeds to interfere with the provincialisation, so effected, in respect of the Respondent No. 7, herein. Accordingly, the provincialisation of the services of the Respondent No. 7, stands set-aside. 19. In view of the above conclusions, the case of the Petitioner, being contented by the State Respondents to have not been recommended by the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee, the Petitioner is directed to submit an application before the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, within a period of 30 (Thirty) days from today staking a claim for having his services, provincialised under the provisions of the Act of 2017. The Director of Elementary Education, Assam, on receipt of the said application, shall place the same before the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee, within a further period of 15 (Fifteen) days. The District Scrutiny Committee, on receipt of the application submitted by the Petitioner, from the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, shall proceed to verify the service particulars of the Page No.# 14/15 Petitioner, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2017, by reckoning the list of Teachers working in the School during its venture stage, as forwarded by the Respondent No. 6, for consideration of provincialisation of their services, as well as, the conclusions drawn, hereinabove, by this Court, in the present order. The District Scrutiny Committee shall initiate and complete its process of verification and make its recommendation, within a period of 1 (One) month from the date of receipt of the application, preferred by the Petitioner, in this connection, from the Director of Elementary Education, Assam. The District Scrutiny Committee, shall, thereafter, place the recommendations made by it, in respect of the Petitioner before the Director of Elementary Education, Assam. The Director of Elementary Education, Assam, if the recommendation so made by the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee, is in favour of the Petitioner, shall process the matter further in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2017 and take the same to its logical conclusion, within a further period of 2 (Two) months from the date the recommendations of the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee, is placed before her. 20. In the event the Petitioner is found to be eligible for having his services provincialised, upon processing the matter, in terms of the directions passed, hereinabove, the provincialisation of the Petitioner shall be given effect Page No.# 15/15 with all consequential benefits, from the date services of the Respondent No. 6, was so provincialised. In the event the Petitioner, is found to be not eligible for having his services provincialised, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, shall pass a speaking order and, therein, incorporate the reasons, as to why the Petitioner was found to be not eligible for having his services provincialised, and communicate the same to the Petitioner, within a further period of 2 (Two) months, w.e.f the date, the said decision is so arrived at in the constituted Committees, under the Act of 2017. 21. It is further provided that the benefits of provincialisation of his services, received by the Respondent No. 7, shall not be recovered, till today, however, no benefit of provincialisation of his services shall be granted to the Respondent No. 7, w.e.f today. 22. With the above observations and directions, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant