Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010082732025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/151/2025 SRI NILA KANTA CHUTIYA, S/O KLESWAR CHUTIA, R/O VILL. BHEBELI GAON, P.O. SISSIBORAON, P.S. SILAPATHAR, DIST. DHEMAJI (ASSAM), PIN 787110 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4ORS REPRESENTED BY SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI 781006 2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI 19 3:THE DIST. ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER (DEEO) DHEMAJI P.O. AND DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN 787057 4:THE BLOCK E ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER (BEEO) DHEMAJI P.O. AND DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN 787057 5:THE DIST. LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE Page No.# 2/6 DHEMAJI REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM DIST. COMMISSIONER DHEMAJI P.O. AND DIST. DHEMAJI ASSAM PIN 78705 For petitioner/appellant(s) : Mr. M. K. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate Mr. N. Sarma, Advocate For respondent(s) : Ms. S. Sarma, GA, Assam Ms. S. Chutia, SC, Elementary Education Deptt. – BEFORE – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 15.09.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Ms. S. Chutia, learned Standing counsel, Elementary Education Department, Assam, for the respondents. The appellant had approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to place his case before the District Scrutiny Committee (hereinafter referred to as “DSC”), Dhemaji, in terms of Section 13(6) of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-Organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of 2017”) for consideration of his services for provincialisation as Assistant Teacher in Bhebeli Adarsha M.E. School, Dhemaji. It may not be out of place here in this context to mention here that earlier, the appellant had approached this Court vide WP(C) 898/2014 seeking a different relief, namely, for being made the Headmaster of the school in Page No.# 3/6 question. The claim of the appellant is that he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Bhebeli Adarshal M.E. School, Dhemaji, on 15.12.1987 as per the resolution of the Managing Committee of the school adopted on 12.12.1986. After the inspection of the school was undertaken, his name figured at Sl. No. 5 as Assistant Teacher in the list prepared, in the order of seniority. Despite this, the charge of the office of the Headmaster of the school in question was given to a person who was junior to him in seniority. In that context, on finding that the junior person, who had been given the charge of Headmaster, had served as Headmaster for the last 20 years, the Court directed that for the purpose of provincialisation, the case of the petitioner/appellant be considered by the respondent authorities as per the provisions of Section 13(6) of the Act of 2017, provided that the petitioner/appellant was eligible for the same. It appears that Section 13(6) of the Act of 2017 provides that for the purpose of provincialisation, the District Scrutiny Committee shall scrutinise and prepare list of all Venture Educational Institutions within the district, which are eligible in terms of the provisions of the Act and shall thereafter proceed to scrutinize and verify the service records of all the serving teachers, who are eligible or would become eligible for being considered for provincialisation of their services. The District Committee shall identity a Base School for each category of school and recommend the names of teacher/tutor to be associated against each Base School. Thus, the Authority which is required to consider the entitlement of a serving teacher for his services to be provincialised is the District Scrutiny Page No.# 4/6 Committee and not the Director of Elementary Education. Pursuant to the order passed in WP(C) 898/2014, referred to above, the matter was taken up but only by the Director of Elementary Education and not by the District Scrutiny Committee. A perusal of the order passed by the Director of Elementary Education indicates that the case of the petitioner was rejected as his name was not recommended by the District Scrutiny Committee for provincialisation of his services as per the Act of 2011 (as amended in 2012). It was found by the Director that all other posts of Assistant Teachers, except the posts of Science Teachers of Bhebeli Adarshal M.E. School were provincialised as per the Act of 2011 (as amended in 2012). The sole ground on which the claim of the appellant was rejected by the Director of Elementary Education vide order dated 09.08.2022 was that the appellant was appointed as Assistant Teacher by the School Managing Committee of the school and therefore his services cannot be absorbed as a Science Teacher, which is lying vacant. This order dated 09.08.2022 was challenged by the appellant before this Court in WP(C) No. 1017/2023. The learned Single Judge, vide his judgment dated 19.03.2025 passed in WP(C) 1017/2023, though took note of the fact that under Section 13(6) of the Act of 2017, for the purpose of provincialisation of the services of the employee, their cases are required to be placed before the District Scrutiny Committee, but held that since the consideration of the case of the petitioner/appellant was made in its proper perspective by the Director of Elementary Education himself, the requirement of consideration was fulfilled and since the name of the petitioner/appellant was not recommended against the posts of teacher Page No.# 5/6 earmarked in the Base School, i.e. the school in which the appellant was appointed, his services could not have been provincialised. The sole contention of the appellant herein against the impugned judgment is that the statutory requirement under the Act of 2017 could not have been waived. It has been submitted that even though the District Scrutiny Committee or the State Level Scrutiny Committee might eventually come to the same conclusion, but the requirement under the statute has not been followed and therefore the order passed by the Director of Elementary Education ought not to have been upheld. Ms. S. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education, Assam, however has submitted that the appellant would not be eligible for being considered for provincialisation as there is no clarity with respect to his appointment, namely, whether he was appointed as a Science Teacher or Mathematics Teacher or in Social Sciences or Languages. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that such categorisation of the posts of teacher was wide enough to include the case of the appellant also. Without going into the afore-noted question, we find that the reasoning given by the learned Single Judge in holding that the decision of the Director of Elementary Education would suffice if the decision has been taken in correct perspective, does not appeal to reason. If a provision has been made in the statute, it is not to be rendered irrelevant or otiose, for not resorting to the same procedure and coming to a conclusion which is adverse to the prospects of the appellant, is not permissible. For the afore-noted reasons, we are inclined to, and set aside the order Page No.# 6/6 passed by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, as well as the impugned judgment justifying and upholding the same. The case of the appellant is remitted to the District Scrutiny Committee, Dhemaji, for taking a fresh decision on the entitlement of the appellant for provincialisation of his services. Such a decision shall be taken by the District Scrutiny Committee within a period of 8 (Eight) weeks from the date of receipt/production of a certified copy of this order. The appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant