Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010149902023 2025:GAU-AS:1113 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4067/2023 GUNAWATI PANYANG @ GUNAWATI PANYANG MORANG W/O- RUHIT MORANG, R/O- VILLAGE AYENGIA BORGAON, P.O- MORNOI BEBEJIA, P.S- GHILAMARA, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS. REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 781019. 3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-787001 4:THE SCHOOL MANAGING COMMITTEE REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT Page No.# 2/6 SANJUKTA SUBANSIRI MISING M.E SCHOOL VILL- AYENGIA BORGAON P.O- MORNOI BEBEJIA GHILAMARA LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-787055 5:DIGANTA TAID S/O- BIKRA TAID VILL AND P.O- BORKHAMUKH P.S-GHILAMARA LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-787055 6:THE DISTRICT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE FOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION LAKHIMPUR REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN- THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-78700 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K NEOG, Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, ELEM. EDU BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 04-02-2025 Heard Mr. MK Neog, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. NJ Khataniar, learned counsel for the Elementary Education Department. 2. No one appears for the respondent No. 5, even though the order dated 19.04.2024 passed by this Court says that service of notice upon respondent Page No.# 3/6 No. 5 is complete. 3. The petitioner’s case is that she was appointed as a Hindi Teacher at Sanjukta Subansiri Mising M.E. School, Lakhimpur on 09.02.2004. On 16.12.2011, the respondent No. 3 submitted the staff pattern of the School before the authority concerned for provincialization. The School was provincialised by the Director of Elementary Education on 14.05.2013. The grievance of the petitioner is that at the time of consideration of the provincialization of the teachers of the said School, the petitioner was incorrectly shown as a Science Teacher instead of a Hindi Teacher and the respondent No. 5 was shown as a Hindi Teacher instead of a Science Teacher. This mistake had been committed by the District Elementary Education Officer, wherein the petitioner was shown to be a Science teacher even though he was a Hindi Teacher. The District Scrutiny Committee thereafter recommended the name of the respondent No. 5 for provincialization, thinking that the respondent No. 5 was a Hindi Teacher. 4. Subsequently, the service of the respondent No. 5 as a Hindi Teacher was provincialised by the State respondents, though he continued to work as a Science Teacher in the said School. The petitioner on the other hand, kept working as a Hindi Teacher in the said School. 5. On a complaint being submitted by the petitioner, the State respondents having come to learn of their mistake, in provincialising the service of the respondent No. 5 as a Hindi Teacher, the provincialization of the respondent No. 5’s service was withdrawn, vide order dated 10.02.2016, issued by the Director of Elementary Education. 6. The petitioner’s counsel submits that as it is an admitted fact that the Page No.# 4/6 provincialization of the service of the respondent No. 5 had been made on the mistaken belief that he was an Hindi Teacher though it was the petitioner, who was the actual Hindi Teacher, the mistake having been discovered, the services of the petitioner as a Hindi Teacher should be provincialised in the said School. 7. Mr. Khataniar, learned counsel for the Elementary Education Department has submitted letter No. EPD/11/84/2023/60 dated 18.01.2025 issued by the Director, Elementary Education, Assam, which is to the effect that a mistake has been committed in provincialising the service of the respondent No. 5 and the provincialization of the respondent No. 5 was consequently withdrawn. Further, the office of the Director Elementary Education had already issued a letter to the Government for giving approval for notifying the name of the petitioner as Hindi Teacher, in place of the respondent No. 5. 8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 9. The letter dated 18.01.2025 issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam clearly shows that a mistake had been committed by the State respondents in provincialising the service of the respondent No. 5 instead of the petitioner, due to the mistake made by the District Elementary Education Officer, who had recorded the petitioner as a Science Teacher and the respondent No. 5 as a Hindi Teacher. It is not disputed by anyone that the petitioner is a Hindi Teacher, who has been working in the School till today as a Hindi Teacher. It is also not disputed that the respondent No. 5 is a Science Teacher and has continued to be a Science Teacher of the said School, even after the provincialization of his service had been withdrawn, vide order dated 10.02.2016, issued by the Director of Elementary Education. 10. The affidavit of the District Commissioner, Lakhimpur is to the effect that Page No.# 5/6 District Level Scrutiny Committee had recommended the staff pattern submitted by the District Elementary Education Officer earlier. However, a revised proposal had now been sent with the recommendation of the District Level Scrutiny Committee to the Director of Elementary Education, for correction of the name of the Hindi Teacher in Sanjukta Subansiri Mising M.E. School, Lakhimpur. 11. In view of the fact that the petitioner’s service should have been provincialised as he is the Hindi Teacher of the said School and as the mistake had occurred due to the making of a wrong staff pattern by the District Elementary Education Officer, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for provincialization as a Hindi Teacher of the said School, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 12. In view of the fact that the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialization of Services) Act 2011 and its amendments have been struck down by this Court vide order dated 23.09.2016 passed in WP(C) 3190/2012 and the Government has enacted the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-Organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017, (hereinafter referred to as the “Act of 2017”), the case of the petitioner would have to be considered under the Act of 2017. 13. The provincialization of the petitioner’s service as a Hindi Teacher, if found eligible, should be done w.e.f. the date of coming into force of the Act of 2017, with all consequential benefits being given to him from the date of coming into force of the Act of 2017. 14. The letter dated 18.01.2025 is made a part of the record and marked as Annexure-X. Page No.# 6/6 15. The writ petition is allowed and accordingly disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant