Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010191012022 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6202/2022 MD HAZARAT ALI @ HAZARAT ALI S/O. LT. ABDUL KUDDUS, VILL. GOROIMARI, P.S. LAHARIGHAT, DIST. MORIGAON, PIN-782104, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REP. BY THE COMM. AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019. 3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER (DEEO) MORIGAON DIST. PIN-782105. 4:THE STATE LEVEL HIGH POWER COMMITTEE REP. BY THE SENIOR MOST SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM EDUCATION DEPTT. GUWAHATI PIN-781006. 5:THE DISTRICT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MORIGAON DIST. PIN-782105. Page No.# 2/5 6:THE MISSION DIRECTOR SARBA SIKHSHA ABHIJAN MISSION KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-1 Advocate for the Petitioner : MD. M H CHOUDHURY, MR. R ALI,MR H A AHMED,MR M SHELIM,MR MONZUR K CHOUDHURY,MR. P CHAKRABORTY,MR. T NORBU,MR. S N AHMED Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, MR. B CHOUDHURY,SC, SSA.,SC, ELEM. EDU BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER 26.03.2025 1. Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Pegu, learned counsel for the Elementary Education Department and Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA). 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection of the proposal for provincialisation of his service as a teacher in Goroimari Bil Nigam L.P. School, Laharighat, Morigaon, on the basis of the order dated 05.07.2022 issued by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Elementary Education Department, which states that the State Level Scrutiny Committee (SLSC) scrutinised all proposals and found that as per the records furnished by the SSA, the name of the petitioner’s School did not appear in the DISE data maintained by the N.U.E.P.A., New Delhi for the year 2009-2010 and prior. 3. Mr. B Choudhury, learned counsel for the SSA submits that as per the DISE data maintained by the N.U.E.P.A., New Delhi, the DISE Code No. 18090116914 Page No.# 3/5 has been captured for the Goroimari Bil Nigam L.P. School for the year 2009- 2010. He accordingly submits that he does not know as to what document had been relied upon by the State Government, for rejecting the petitioner’s provincialisation proposal. 4. This Court in it’s order dated 06.03.2025 had directed the learned counsel for the Elementary Education Department, Assam to obtain instructions from the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Elementary Education Department, as to the basis/documents relied upon by the State Government, for rejecting the proposal to provincialise the service of the petitioner, in terms of the impugned order dated 05.07.2022. 4. Mr. G. Pegu has today submitted letter no.E 212290/ 230 dated 20.03.2025 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education, which is to the effect that the impugned order dated 05.07.2022 had been made on the basis of information shared by the Director of Elementary Education, vide letter no.EPD/H/205/2021/15 dated 13.12.2021, which states that the school Goroimari Bil Nigam L.P. School did not figure in the DISE data during the year 2009-2010 and prior, as per the DISE Verification Report maintained by N.U.E.P.A., New Delhi, which had been submitted by the SSA. 5. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 6. The letter dated 20.03.2025 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education and letter dated 13.12.2021 issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam are made a Page No.# 4/5 part of the record and marked as Annexures-X & Y respectively. 7. As can be seen from Annexures-X & Y, the proposal for provincialisation of the petitioner’s service as a Teacher has been rejected on the ground that the records furnished by the SSA showed that the name of the petitioner’s school did not appear in the DISE data maintained by the N.U.E.P.A., New Delhi for the year 2009-2010 and prior. 8. On the other hand, Mr. B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the SSA has submitted the year wise status of the Goroimari Bil Nigam L.P. School bearing UDISE Code 18090116914 along with the Teachers as per the DISE/UDISE submitted to N.U.E.P.A., New Delhi, as enclosed as Annexure-1 to the forwarding letter dated 13.02.2025 issued by the Executive Director, SSA. 9. The letter dated 13.02.2025 issued by the Executive Director, SSA and Annexure-1 are made a part of the record and marked as Annexure-Z collectively. A perusal of Annexure-1 of Annexure-Z collectively shows that Goroimari Bil Nigam L.P. School appeared in the DISE data maintained by the N.U.E.P.A., New Delhi for the year 2009-2010. 10. In view of the fact that the SSA is the authority that uploads the data maintained by the N.U.E.P.A., New Delhi, which comes under the Ministry of Education, Government of India, the stand of the SSA that the school appeared in DISE data maintained by the N.U.E.P.A, New Delhi would have to be accepted by this Court. The stand of the State Government that the petitioner’s school did not appear in the DISE data maintained by the N.U.E.P.A., New Delhi cannot be accepted as the same is not supported by the SSA. The issue having been Page No.# 5/5 clarified by the SSA, the rejection of the proposal for provincialisation of the petitioner’s service as a Teacher is clearly at odds with Annexure-Z Collectively, submitted by the counsel for the SSA. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 05.07.2022, rejecting the proposal for provincialisation of the petitioner’s service as a Teacher is clearly bad in law and is not sustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 05.07.2022 is hereby set aside. The State respondents are directed to re-consider provincialisation of the service of the petitioner in Goroimari Bil Nigam L.P. School on the basis of the stand taken by the SSA that the DISE Code of the said school has been captured for the year 2009-2010. The exercise should be concluded by the State respondents within a period of 3 (three) months, from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 11. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant