Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010106812023 2025:GAU-AS:808 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2823/2023 BISWESWAR DAS AND ANR S/O- LATE RASH BEHARI DAS, R/O- VILL.- KALAINCHERRA, P.O. KALAINCHERRA, DIST. CACHAR, ASSAM 2: PRODIP MALAKAR S/O- NOKESH MALAKAR R/O- VILL.- RAJYESWARPUR P.O. RAJESWARPUR (WEST) DIST. CACHAR ASSA VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION ELEMENTARY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19. 3:THE MISSION DIRECTOR AXOM SARBA SIKSHA ABHIJAN MISSION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19. 4:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER CACHAR ASSAM Page No.# 2/7 5:THE DISTRICT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE CACHAR SILCHAR ASSAM (TO BE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CACHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM). 6:THE STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE ASSAM TO BE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN-CUM-THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT KAHILIPARA ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J LASKAR, Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, ELEM. EDU,SC, SSA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 27.01.2025 Heard Mr. J. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. G. Pegu, learned Standing Counsel for the Elementary Education Department, Assam. 2. The petitioners in the present proceeding have presented a challenge to an Order dated 10.04.2023, issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, placing the case of the petitioners before the Government for consideration of their claim for provincialisation of their services. 3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner No. 1 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Monthal V.L.P. School on 18.10.1984 and he had joined his services on 01.01.1985. The petitioner No. 2 was appointed in the same school on 03.02.1993 and he had joined his services on 25.01.1993. It is to be noted that Page No.# 3/7 during the period the petitioners were so appointed, the school was in its venture stage. 4. On the enactment of “The Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017”, the cases of the petitioners herein were taken up for consideration for provincialisation of their services. The services of the petitioners not being provincialised, the petitioners had approached this Court by way of instituting WP(C) No. 7271/2022. 5. This Court, vide order dated 18.11.2022, upon considering the issues arising in the said proceeding, was pleased to dispose of the writ petition by directing the petitioners herein to file an appeal before the appellate authority of the State Government in the Elementary Education Department, Assam and the appellate authority, on receipt of such appeal, was directed to dispose of the same with a reasoned order. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners had submitted appeal before the respondent authorities. The Director of Elementary Education, Assam vide communication dated 10.04.2023, had forwarded the case of the petitioners to the Government in the Department of School Education for further processing. In the said communication dated 10.04.2023, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, had noted that the names of the petitioners namely, “BISWESWAR DAS” and “PRODIP MALAKAR” did not appear in the DISE data maintained by the NEUPA, New Delhi, upto 2011-12 and afterwards. Accordingly, it was contended in the said letter that the SLSC was not in a position to recommend the name of the petitioners for provincialisation of their services, under the provisions of the said Act of 2017. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have instituted the present proceeding. 7. As the matter was placed by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam before the Government in the Department of School Education, this Court, had Page No.# 4/7 granted time to the Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department to receive instructions in the matter on the last dates of hearing. However, no such instructions came to be placed before this Court in the matter by the Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department. The Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department has however, placed a communication dated 05.12.2024, received by her, from the Director of Elementary Education, Assam. 8. A perusal of the said communication dated 05.12.2024 would go to reveal that on account of a doubt arising in the matter as to whether, it is the petitioners in the present proceeding, who had continued to serve in the school in question, a decision in the matter has not been arrived at by the appellate authority with regard to provincialisation of the services of the petitioners herein. 9. As per the scheme of the provisions of the said Act of 2017, the provincialisation of services of teachers working in Venture Educational Institutions found eligible for being provincialised is to be at the initial stage required to be considered by the jurisdictional DLSC, constituted in each district, separately for the Elementary, Secondary and Higher Education Institutions. 10. In the case on hand, the jurisdictional DLSC, had on verification of the particulars of the petitioners herein, recommended their case for provincialisation of their services, however, on account of the doubt arising in view of the disclosure made by the DISE data as captured for the school in question, the SLSC had not arrived at any conclusion with regard to the recommendations so made in favour of the petitioner herein, by the jurisdictional DLSC. 11. As noticed herein above, the communication dated 05.12.2024, goes to reveal that the name of the petitioner no. 1 herein, “BISWESWAR DAS” was found to appear as “BISWASWAR DAS” till 2016-17 in the DISE data as maintained by NEUPA, New Delhi. After 2016-17, the name of the petitioner no. 1 was captured as “BISWESWAR DAS”. Likewise, the name of the petitioner no. 2 herein, “PRODIP Page No.# 5/7 MALAKAR” was reported by the SSA authorities to not figure in the DISE data, however, in a subsequent report the SSA authorities had reported that the name of the petitioner no. 2 appeared in the DISE data from the year 2006-07 till 2021/22. Accordingly, the SLSC had found it difficult to ascertain as to which report of the SSA authorities is required to be so accepted with regard to the processing of the claim of the petitioners for provincialisation of their services. 12. As noticed herein above, in view of the said doubt existing with regard to the existence of the names of the petitioners in the DISE data, the SLSC had not made any recommendation in the matter. In absence of a recommendation being so made by the SLSC, the appellate authority, i.e. the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education had not arrived at any conclusion with regard to the claim made by the petitioner in the appeal so preferred before him, in pursuance to the directions passed by this court vide order dated 18.11.2022 in WP(C) No. 7271/2022. 13. At this stage, the power conferred upon the SLSC, in terms of the provisions of the said Act of 2017 is required to be noticed. 14. Sub-section (11) of Section 13 of the said Act of 2017 mandates the manner in which the SLSC shall make its recommendations. The said provision being relevant is extracted herein below:- “11. The State Level Scrutiny Committee shall have to cause physical verification of all institutions and will also inspect all documents and records produced before it and call for such other records and documents as may be required for the purpose of causing verification.” 15. A perusal of Sub-section (11) of Section 13 of the said Act of 2017 would go to reveal that the SLSC for the purpose of determining the eligibility of the applicants before it for being provincialisation of their services has to cause a physical verification of the institution and inspect all documents and records Page No.# 6/7 produced before it. It is further empowered to call for such other records and documents as may be required for the purpose of causing verification. 16. The materials as brought on record would go to reveal that the said power as vested with the SLSC has not been exercised in the matter while considering the appeal submitted by the petitioners herein. 17. In view of the above position, the communication dated 10.04.2023, stands interfered with. The SLSC shall now reconsider the appeal submitted by the petitioners herein and while reckoning the DISE data as may produced before it by the SSA authorities pertaining to the petitioners herein, the existence and continuance of the petitioners in the school in question shall now be determined by the SLSC strictly, by exercising the power vested to it under the provisions of Sub- section (11) of Section 13 of the said Act of 2017. 18. Given the facts and circumstances involved in the matter, the SLC before arriving at a decision with regard to the claim of the petitioners herein, shall provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners for establishing the fact that since the date of their initial appointment in the school in question, they have been continuously working therein, and accordingly, they would be entitled to be provincialised in their services. 19. On conclusion of the exercise as required to be carried out by the SLSC, as directed herein above, the Director of Elementary Education Assam, shall pass a speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner. In the event, the petitioners are found to be entitled to have their services provincialised, the matter be processed and the respondent authorities shall pass appropriate orders provincialising the services of the petitioners herein, w.e.f. the date the services of similarly situated category employees were so provincialised with all consequential benefits. Page No.# 7/7 20. The entire exercise now required to be carried out by the SLSC and the passing of the Speaking order by the Director of Secondary Education Department shall be so initiated and completed within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 21. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant