Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010201922023 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5378/2023 HAREN KHOUND S/O LATE JATIN KHOUND, VILL-VERAKI, P.O. AND P.S.-PANIGAON, DIST- LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006 2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER LAKHIMPUR NORTH LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 4:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS LAKHIMPUR NORTH LAKHIMPUR 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAKHIMPUR NORTH LAKHIMPUR 6:THE HEADMASTER OF ALICHIGA KHABALI JANAJATI M.E. SCHOOL VILL-ALICHIGA KHABALI P.O.-KUHIARBARI Page No.# 2/3 P.S.-PANIGAON DIST- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM 7:MOHARI PEGU S/O H. PEGU VILL-BORDOBI MAHARI CHUK P.O.-KUHIYABARI P.S.-PANIGAON DIST-LAKHIMPUR ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R P SARMAH, MS R DUTTA,MR MINTU SAIKIA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 28.02.2025 Heard Mr. M. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Mr. Kaushik, learned Standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, by referring to the order dated 22.05.2023, passed by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education, submits that in view the facts and findings that the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011, amended in 2012 was struck down by this Court, vide order dated 23.09.2016, passed in WP(C) 3190/2012, the matter of the petitioner and respondent No. 7, namely, Mohari Pegu was considered under the Act of 2017. But, the Act of 2017 permits only three teachers considering the enrolment position of the student, however, already four numbers of teachers have been provincialised against Alichiga Khabali Page No.# 3/3 Janajati M.E. School, under Lakhimpur district as per the Act of 2011, and as such, the claim of the petitioner and respondent No. 7, namely, Mohari Pegu was rejected and this order has not been challenged by the petitioner here in this petition, and unless the order dated, 22.05.2023, is challenged and set aside, the relief prayed for in this petition cannot be granted to the petitioner. At this stage, Mr. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to approach this Court again by filing appropriate petition. Prayer is allowed. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of on withdrawal. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach this Court again by filing appropriate petition. JUDGE Comparing Assistant