Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010106422024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2867/2024 MUNTAZ ALI AHMED S/O- UMED ALI AHMED, R/O- VILLAGE- BHERALDI, DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781309 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019 3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER BARPETA ASSAM PIN-781314 4:THE MISSION DIRECTOR SAMAGRA SHIKSHA ASSAM (SSA) KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-78101 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M P SARMA, MR A CHAKRABORTY,MR A CHETIA Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, SC, SSA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE ORDER Date : 26.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. A Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A Phukan, learned Standing counsel for Elementary Education Department and Mr. B Gogoi, learned Standing counsel, S.S.A, for respondent No. 4. 2. Challenge made in this Writ Petition is to the order dated 31.03.2022 issued by the Director, Elementary Education Department, Government of Assam, wherein the claim of the petitioner for provincialisation of his service as tutor has been rejected. 3. The petitioner claims to have joined as the Head Master of Pani Marisa Gaon Marisa Pathar ME Madrasa of 13.12.1994. Having considered the eligibility of the petitioner for provincialisation as tutor, the District Scrutiny Committee, has recommended the name of the petitioner for provincialisation in terms of The Assam Education (Provincialisation of services of teachers and re-organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017. 4. It is submitted by Mr. A Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner that despite recommendation by the District Scrutiny Committee for provincialisation of service of the petitioner, when no action was taken, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition being WP(C)/6180/2021. This Court, vide order dated 24.11.2021 has disposed of the Writ Petition with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the representation and dispose of the same with a speaking order. 5. He submits that while disposing of the representation of the petitioner Page No.# 3/4 pursuant to the order of this Court, the respondent authority has illegally rejected the case of the petitioner only on the ground that the name of the petitioner did not appear in the DISE data maintained by NEUPA (New Delhi) up to the year 2011-2012. 6. Mr. A Chakraborty, learned counsel, while referring to the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondent No. 4, submits that the record placed by the respondent No. 4 clearly reveals that the name of the petitioner, has been appearing in the DISE data since 2007-2021. Therefore, the ground of rejection of the case of the petitioner for provincialisation of his service is contrary to the records. Therefore, same is liable to be set-aside and quashed and the respondent authorities may be directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner and to provincialise the service of the petitioner. 7. Mr. A Phukan, learned Standing counsel for Elementary Education Department and Mr. B Gogoi, learned Standing counsel, S.S.A for respondent No. 4 have fairly submitted that the ground of rejection by the authorities appear to be contrary to the record as the rejection is on the ground that the name of the petitioner does not appear in the DISE data for the year 2011- 2012 whereas, as per the record, the name of the petitioner appears in the DISE data from 2007-2021. Therefore, they submit that the matter needs re- consideration. 8. Having considered that the case of the petitioner for provincialisation of his service has been rejected only on the ground that the name of the petitioner does not appear in the DISE data up to the year 2011-2012 which is contrary to the records placed by the respondent No. 4, i.e. S.S.A which clearly shows that the name of the petitioner appear in the said DISE data since 2007-2021, I am of the view that the case of the petitioner deserves re-consideration by the respondent authorities. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Page No.# 4/4 respondent authorities, particularly respondent No. 1 and 2 to re-consider the case of the petitioner strictly in terms of the provisions of The Assam Education (Provincialisation of services of teachers and re-organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 for provincialisation of the service of the petitioner without taking into account the issue of whether the name of the petitioner appears in the DISE data as the record placed by the concerned authorities clearly reflects that the name of the petitioner has been mentioned in the DISE data since 2007-2021. The whole exercise as directed hereinabove shall be made within a period not later than 3 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 10. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant