Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010099092025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/347/2025 1.THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006 2: THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION DISPUR GUWAHATI-06. 3: THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19. 4: THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER DHUBRI ASSAM. 5: THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY OFFICER AMGOMNI GOLAKGANJ DHUBRI ASSAM VERSUS 1.NABANITA MANDAL AND 2 ORS. W/O- SRI DIPAK KUMAR MANDAL, R/O- KAIMARI PART II, PO- KAIMARI, PS GOLOKGANJ, DIST- DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783335 2:THE HEADMASTER M.E. MADRASSA ASSAM R/O. VILL.- KAIMARI PART-II P/O.KAIMARI DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN-783335. 3:THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE GOVT. OF ASSAM. ASSAM SECRETRIAT C.M. BLOCK DISPUR GUWAHATI-781006 Page No.# 2/5 For the Appellant(s) : Mr. N.J. Khataniar, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M.K. Choudhury, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. R. Gohain and Mr. N. Sarma, Advocate for respondent No.1. – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 07.11.2025 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. N.J. Khataniar, learned Advocate for the appellants/State and Mr. M.K. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. R. Gohain and Mr. N. Sarma, learned Advocates for respondent No.1. 2. The appellant/State has challenged the judgment dated 02.02.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.6013/2023, wherein the claim of the respondent No.1 of her services being regularized from the date of her initial appointment has been allowed and the agency of the appellant has been directed to enforce that her services are regularized w.e.f. 01.11.1990, reserving her entitlement to the salaries from the said date and that she would be covered by the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, making her eligible for pension and other pensionary benefits. 3. The respondent No.1 was appointed as a Hindi Teacher at Kaimari M.E. Madrassa on 30.10.1990 by the Management Committee of the school. The school had been provincialized in 1980 but such Page No.# 3/5 provincialization was kept in abeyance by the Government for some reason. 4. Because of the abeyance of the order provincializing the school, all teachers appointed during that period remained teachers of a venture school. 5. The appointment of respondent No.1 was later approved by the District Elementary Education Officer, Dhubri on 06.10.2004. In the year 2008, when the provincialization was effected, the services of all others including the staff and teachers who were appointed after respondent No.1 were provincialized with the retrospective date, i.e. from the date of their joining. However, in the case of the respondent No.1, her service was regularized prospectively from 10.03.2015, ostensibly on the ground that such regularization could have been made only after the creation of the new post of Hindi Teacher in December, 2014. 6. While the representation of the respondent No.1 was under consideration, she retired on 28.02.2023 but challenged the decision of the appellant/State in regularizing her services only from March, 2015 and subjecting her to the New Pension Scheme. 7. The contention of the respondent No.1 before the learned Single Judge was that her appointment had taken place when the school was at a venture stage as by that time, the school would not have been taken to be a provincialized school. Since all other teachers appointed after her, had their services provincialized retrospectively and even the DEEO, Dhubri had recommended for regularization of her Page No.# 4/5 services from the date of her appointment, she deserved to be treated equally along with other teachers. 8. Her services were only prospectively regularized. 9. The only contention of the appellants/State before the learned Single Judge and also before this Court is that since the respondent No.1 was employed in the year 1990 when the school was at a venture stage, her appointment was not valid for the purposes of regularization. Her appointment, as contended by the State, was against a non-existent post, which post of Hindi Teacher was created only in 2014. 10. The other ground raised but not pressed was that the respondent No.1 did not qualify for her services to be regularized for the reason that she had not served at least for 2(two) years at the venture stage before provincialization, as required under the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialization) Rules, 1977 and therefore, she was ineligible for retrospective benefit. 11. None of these grounds found favour of the learned Single Judge for 2(two) reasons, namely, that others who were appointed during the period when the school still remained at the stage of venture school, were given the benefit of retrospective regularization of their services and that after checking the records, the DEEO had also recommended for giving the same treatment to the respondent No.1. Even otherwise, the ground taken herein in this writ appeal by the appellants/State that the post of Hindi Teacher was created only in the year 2014, is not sustainable as the school in question at a venture stage would not have had any sanctioned post in any subject against which Page No.# 5/5 other appointees were given the benefit of regularization retrospectively. 12. We do not find any reason for differing with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge, holding the respondent No.1 to be entitled to be regularized from the date of her appointment and if that is done, it would automatically bring her in the category of teachers to whom Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 would apply. 13. Thus, finding no merit in this writ appeal, we dismiss the same. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant