Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010088102025 2025:GAU-AS:11684 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2387/2025 ASHAD ALI SHEIKH AND 6 ORS S/O LT. YEAJ UDDIN, R/O VILL- MAYERCHAR PT-VII, P.O.-NAYERALGA, P.S.- BILASIPARA, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN-783348 2: ABDUL MANNAN MONDAL S/O IMAN ALI MONDAL VILL- MAYERCHAR PT-VII P.O.-NAYERALGA P.S.- BILASIPARA DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783348 3: SHAHIDA KHATUN MONDAL D/O AKBAR ALI MONDAL VILL- MAYERCHAR PT-VII P.O.-NAYERALGA P.S.- BILASIPARA DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783348 4: SHAYEDUL AHMED S/O LT. ABDUL AZIZ AHMED VILL- MAYERCHAR PT-VII P.O.-NAYERALGA P.S.- BILASIPARA DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783348 5: ABU BAKKAR SIDDIQUE S/O ABDUL SK VILL- MAYERCHAR PT-VII Page No.# 2/5 P.O.-NAYERALGA P.S.- BILASIPARA DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783348 6: KORBAN ALI MONDAL S/O LT. JAMAT ALI MONDAL VILL- MAYERCHAR PT-VII P.O.-NAYERALGA P.S.- BILASIPARA DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783348 7: ALTAP HUSSAIN S/O LT. TAHER ALI VILL- MAYERCHAR PT-VII P.O.-NAYERALGA P.S.- BILASIPARA DIST- DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-78334 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPARTMENT DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 3:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019 4:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS DHUBRI DISTRICT CIRCLE DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-78330 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M U MONDAL, A A AHMED,MR. A W MONDAL,MR A Page No.# 3/5 ALIM SK,MR K ISLAM Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MS. P DAS, SC, SEC. EDU. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 29-08-2025 Heard Mr. M. U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. K. Phukan, learned Government Advocate for respondent No.1 and Mr. U. Sharma, learned standing counsel for the Secondary Education Department for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4. 2. Mr. M. U. Mondal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are teaching and non-teaching staff of Noser Mondal Memorial High Madrassa in Dhubri district. He further submits that the District Level Scrutiny Committee (for short, the DLSC) under Section 13 of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (for short, the Act of 2017) recommended the petitioners for the purpose of provincialisation. Mr. Mondal also submits that vide order dated 22.12.2020, this Court, in WP(C) No. 5768/2020, had directed to place the matter of the petitioner before the State Level Scrutiny Committee. Thereafter, for non-compliance of the order of this Court, the petitioners had initiated a contempt proceeding, being Cont. Case(C) No. 103/2021. Mr. Mondal also submits that in the said proceeding, the learned standing counsel for the department had produced a letter of the Director of Secondary Education, dated 14.08.2023, which reveals Page No.# 4/5 that the petitioners case was placed before the State Level Scrutiny Committee and the said committee, after examination, had recommended the case of the petitioner for provincialisation, and it also revealed that necessary proposals had also been submitted to the Government for creation of posts, in terms of the recommendation made by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. Mr. Mondal further submits that after the letter dated 14.08.2023, more than two years elapsed and the service of the petitioners are yet to be provincilised. And the petitioners have filed several representations to the respondent authorities and last such representation was submitted on 18.03.2025. But, the same failed to evoke any response till date and as such, this petition may be disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to dispose of the representation in a time bound manner. 3. Per contra, Mr. U. Sharma, learned standing counsel for the respondent authorities submits that four months time may be granted to the respondent authorities to provincialise the services of the petitioners and thereafter, dispose of this writ petition. 4. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record. 5. Basic facts herein this case are not in dispute. The respondent No. 3, vide its letter dated 14.08.2023, had forwarded the proposal for provincialisation of services of the petitioners to the respondent No.1 and even after elapse of more than two years the service of the petitioners have not been provincilised. And the petitioners have filed several representations to the respondent authorities and last such Page No.# 5/5 representation was submitted on 18.03.2025. But, the same failed to yield any result. 6. In view of the above, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition by directing the respondent authorities to provincialise the services of the petitioners within a period of four months from today, in view of the approval given by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, and to take the entire process to a logical conclusion. The petitioners shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent authorities within a period of one week from today. 7. The parties have to bear their own costs. J U D G E Comparing Assistant