Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010096892023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/52/2024 AMULYA PRASAD SAIKIA S/O LT. KERO SAIKIA, R/O GHUMUCHA BARI, P.O.- CHIRAM BANAMALI, P.S.- JENGRAIMUKH, PIN- 785105 IN THE DISTRICT OF MAJULI, ASSAM. VERSUS RUPALI NARAH AND 7 ORS. B D/O- JUNARAM NARAH, R/O- VILL- NA BHANGA MUK, P.O.- CHIRAM BONAMALI, BLOCK- KAMALABARI, PIN- 785105, DIST.- MAJULI, ASSAM. 2:THE STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE REP. BY THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION KAHILIPARA, GUWAHATI- 19 KAMRUP (M), ASSAM. 3:THE DISTRICT LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE MAJULI/JORHAT DISTRICT REP. BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MAJULI/JORHAT DISTRICT 4:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER MAJULI/JORHAT DISTRICT- MAJULI, PIN- 785104, ASSAM. 5:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER MAJULI DIST.- MAJULI, PIN- 785104, ASSAM. 6:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY DEPTT. OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 06, ASSAM. Page No.# 2/5 7:DEVI RAM TAHU TUTOR NA BHANGA JANAJATI M.E. SCHOOL VILL- NA BHANGA MUKH P.O. CHIRAM BONAMALI BLOCK- KAMALABARI DIST.- MAJULI, ASSAM, PIN- 785105. 8:THAGIRAM DAS VILL- NA BHANGA MUKH P.O. CHIRAM BONAMALI BLOCK- KAMALABARI DIST.- MAJULI, ASSAM, PIN- 785105 For appellant(s) : Mr. P. Mahanta, Advocate Ms. M. Das, Advocate For respondent(s) : Mr. B. K. Das, Advocate Ms. K. Das, SC, Elementary Education Mr. N. Das, GA, Assam Mr. D. Deka, Advocate – BEFORE – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR 20.03.2025 (Vijay Bishnoi, CJ) This writ appeal is preferred by the appellant being aggrieved with the judgment and order dated 14.02.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 1623/2021, whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition preferred by the respondent No. 1 herein and has granted liberty to the respondent No. 1 as well as the appellant to prefer appeal before the State Level Scrutiny Committee. At the same time, the learned Single Judge has also set aside the provincialisation of the appellant’s services. The learned Single Judge has further directed that in the event of filing such appeal by the respondent No. 1 as well as by the appellant, the appellate authority shall Page No.# 3/5 dispose of the said appeal within 90 (Ninety) days by passing a reasoned order, after verification of the relevant records and after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No. 1 herein approached the writ court by way of filing WP(C) 1623/2021 claiming that she was teaching Social Science to the students in Na Bhanga Janajati M.E. (Rural) School, under the Jani Majuli Education Block, in the district of Jorhat, Assam. However, when the matter of provincialisation of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the said school was taken up for consideration under the provisions of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re- organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017, as amended, the services of the respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 were considered for provincialisation by the authorities concerned under the provisions of the said Act, while discarding the better claim of the petitioner. 3. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after taking into consideration the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in the writ petition, has ordered for setting aside the provincialisation of the services of the appellant only. However, so far as the claim of the respondent No. 1 is concerned, the learned Single Judge has relegated her to approach the appellate authority, i.e. State Level Scrutiny Committee, to substantiate her claim for provincialisation, as prayed for. At the same time, the learned Single Judge has also kept it open for the appellant to approach the State Level Scrutiny Committee. Page No.# 4/5 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that, as a matter of fact, the respondent No. 1 in the writ petition never prayed for setting aside the provincialisation of the services of the appellant, but the learned Single Judge has ignored this aspect of the matter and has illegally set aside the provincialisation of the services of the appellant. It is contended that had the provincialisation of the appellant been challenged in the writ petition, the appellant would have defended his case, but without providing any opportunity to defend the provincialisation of his services, the learned Single Judge has illegally set aside the provincialisation of the services of the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant has therefore prayed that the appeal filed by the appellant may kindly be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent of setting aside the provincialisation of the appellant’s services may kindly be interfered with. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the State respondents as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 have opposed the writ appeal. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 7 has submitted that since the respondent No. 7 is not affected by the impugned order, he has nothing to submit. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the material available on record, we are of the view that when the provincialisation of the services of the appellant was not under challenge in the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1, there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to examine the matter of provincialisation of the appellant’s services. It is also to be noted that this Court, vide order dated Page No.# 5/5 08.05.2024, stayed the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent of setting aside the provincialisation of the services of the appellant, while clarifying that the State Level Scrutiny Committee would be free to proceed with the representation, if any, filed by the respondent No. 1. This Court is apprised that pursuant to the said order, the respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the State Level Scrutiny Committee, however, the appeal has been dismissed and the appellate authority has again recommended for provincialisation of the services of the appellant vide order dated 26.11.2024. 7. In view of the above, we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent of setting aside the provincialisation of the appellant’s services is not liable to be sustained. The same is therefore set aside up to that extent. Needless to say that the respondent No. 1, if aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2024 passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, he is free to avail appropriate remedy available to him under the law. The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the above. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant