Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010269712025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/7250/2025 DEEPAK BORGOHAIN AND 3 ORS. ASSISTANT TEACHER, BHORIDHOWA M.E.SCHOOL, P.O.- BHORIDHOWA, DISTRICT- NAGAON. 2: ZAKIRUL ISLAM ASSISTANT TEACHER CHETA RUPAHI M.E. MADRESSA P.O. HERAPATI DIST. NAGAON. 3: DILUARA HASINA ASSISTANT TEACHER CHETIA RUPAHI M.E. MADRESSA P.O. HERAPATI DIST. NAGAON. 4: MUZAKKIR HASSAN BORBHUYAN ASSISTANT TEACHER (DROPPED) NAKHULI KHAGORIJAN M.E. SCHOOL P.O. NAKHULI BAZAR DIST. NAGAO VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006. 2:THE HIGH POWER COMMITTEE (HPC) FOR PROVINCIALISATION OF SERVICES OF DROPPED TEACHERS UNDER ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN DISPUR Page No.# 2/7 GUWAHATI-781006. 3:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19. 4:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER (DEEO) NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782001. 5:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER (BEEO) KALIABOR/KHAGARIJAN ASSAM PIN-78202 Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. K DEVI, N O POMONG Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 16.02.2026 1. Heard Ms. K Devi, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. N Phukan, learned standing counsel, Department of Elementary Education, Assam appearing for all the respondents. 2. The petitioners, in the present proceeding, have presented a challenge to a communication dated 16.07.2024, issued by the Director, Department of Elementary Education, Assam, rejecting the claim of the petitioners for provincialization of their services on the ground that the petitioners, herein, had not completed 2 (Two) years of continuous service on the date the school, wherein, they were so serving, came to be provincialized, as per the Rules prevalent at the relevant point of time. Page No.# 3/7 3. The petitioners, herein, were appointed by the Managing Committees of their respective schools. The appointments, made in respect of the petitioners, were approved by the jurisdictional District Elementary Education Officer. After the appointment of the petitioners were so effected, the schools, wherein, the petitioners were so working, came to be provincialized under the provisions of Assam Elementary Education (Provincialization) Rules, 1977, w.e.f 19.11.1991. The services of the petitioners, herein, however, were not provincialized at that relevant point of time and they were denoted as “Dropped Teachers”. Proceedings came to be instituted before this Court by similarly situated dropped teachers which had led to the constitution of a High Power Committee for considering the case of dropped teachers. Accordingly, advertisements came to be issued, inviting applications from such category of teachers, for provincialization of their services. The petitioners also applied in pursuance to such advertisements issued in the matter. It is found that the petitioners were not found eligible for the provincialization of their services. The petitioners, along with one another, accordingly, approached this Court, by way of instituting a Writ Petition being WP(C) No. 2473/2024. A coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 29.05.2024, noticing the grievances raised by the petitioners therein, disposed of the Writ Petition by directing that the case of the petitioners, as be placed before the High Power Committee as constituted vide notification dated 06.03.2017. A finding was recorded by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the said order that the said High Power Committee, was in existence, but the cases of the petitioners were never placed before the said High Power Committee. After the passing of the said directions by this Court, vide the said order dated 29.05.2024, the Director, Elementary Education, Assam, vide communication dated 16.07.2024, requested the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education, Assam, to place the case of the petitioners before the High Power Committee. However, in Page No.# 4/7 the said communication, it was noted that the petitioners had not completed 2 (Two) years of continuous service before the provincilization of their respective schools and further, that the names of the petitioners were also not found in the details submitted by the jurisdictional District Elementary Education Officer, at the relevant point of time, when the schools of the petitioners were considered for provincialization. 4. The petitioners, in the present proceeding, have relied upon a decision of this Court in Jintu Bordoloi & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors [Order dated 29.10.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 1183/2014], wherein, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, considering issues as arising in the proceedings, had noticed that the High Power Committee is required to examine relaxation of the 2 (Two) years teaching experience, required for provincialization, by invoking the provisions of Rule 7 of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialization) Rules, 1977. The Coordinate Bench of this Court observed as under : “5. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) 342/2011, WP(C) 703/2013 and WP(C) 1046/2013 submits that the petitioners in these petitions had not completed two years of service on the date of provincialisation of their schools. In this regard, Mr. Saikia has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision of this Court rendered in WP(C) 6842/2010, disposed of on 05.04.2013, in which this Court had directed the authorities to consider the case of the petitioners therein for provincialisation by relaxing the two years of teaching experience, which was required for provincialisation, by invoking Rule 7 of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977, as had been done in case of 130 similarly situated dropped teachers. By referring to paragraphs 40 and 41 of the aforesaid decision, Mr. Saikia prays that similar direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners also for provincialisation by invoking Rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules. For better appreciation, paragraphs 40 and 41 of the aforesaid decision of this Court are reproduced below: "40. Claims of the petitioners are not fresh ones. They have been knocking the doors of this Court since a long time. Their cases were scrutinized by the departmental authorities and put up before the High Power Committee. As already noticed above, only ground of rejection of their cases is not having two years of service on the date of provincialisation of the respective schools. While the benefit of relaxation under Rule 7 has been extended to 130 Page No.# 5/7 similarly situated dropped teachers, the same has not been extended to the petitioners without any reasonable basis or justification. While exercising the power under Rule 7 of the Rules, the State is required to act in a fair and judicious manner. There should not be any arbitrariness or discrimination in the exercise of such power which would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that petitioners were subjected to an unfair and discriminatory treatment, which situation is now required to be remedied. 41. In that view of the matter, the cases of the petitioners for provincialisation are required to be reconsidered by invoking the power under Rule 7 of the Rules by the State Government at par with the 130 dropped teachers in w hose cases the provision of Rule 5(3) was relaxed. The above exercise shall be carried out within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order." 6. Ms. R. Chakraborty, learned Senior Standing counsel for the Education Department submits that since the High Power Committee is still undertaking the exercise of considering the cases of dropped teachers, the case of the petitioners also can be considered, if not already considered by the Committee, in accordance with the norms and criteria being applied and in light of the aforesaid direction of this Court in WP(C) No. 6842/2010. 7. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, these writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondent authorities to place the case of the petitioners before the High Power Committee so that their cases for provincialisation can be considered by the High Power Committee in accordance with the norms/criteria and eligibility conditions as notified in the Notification dated 13.01.2003 as also directed in Civil Rule No. 1571 of 1998. While doing so, the High Power Committee will also consider relaxation of the requisite two years of teaching experience in respect of the petitioners, who have not completed two years of teaching experience on the date of provincialisation of the respective schools, by invoking the power under Rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules as had been done in respect of similarly situated dropped teachers, who did not have two years of teaching experience, as directed in WP(C) 6842/2010. 8. In order to expedite the process, the petitioners are directed to submit individual representations, accompanied by a certified copy of this order along with copy of their respective writ petitions and Annexures thereto, before the High Power Committee for consideration.” 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 6. The learned counsel for the parties have submitted that the case of Page No.# 6/7 the petitioners, in the present proceeding, is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Jintu Bordoloi (Supra) and accordingly, the present Writ Petition can also be disposed of, in the light of the said decision. 7. This Court has perused the conclusions reached by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jintu Bordoloi (Supra) and finds that the same to be also applicable in respect of the petitioners in the present proceedings. Accordingly, having considered the submission of the learned counsel for the parties, the present Writ Petition is disposed of by directing the respondent authorities to place the case of the petitioners before the High Power Committee for consideration of their cases for provincialization of their services, in accordance with the norms, criteria and eligibility conditions as notified in the notification dated 13.01.2003 and also the directions passed by this Court in Civil Rule No. 1571/1998. 8. The High Power Committee, while considering the case of the petitioners, shall also consider the relaxation of the requisite 2 (Two) years of teaching experience, in respect of the petitioners, on the date of provinicialization of their respective schools, by invoking the power under Rule 7 of the said Rules of 1977 as was done in respect of the similarly situated dropped teachers who also did not have the requisite 2 (Two) years teaching experience on the date when their respective schools were considered for provincilization. 9. The petitioners for expediting the process, shall submit individual representations accompanied by certified copy of this order and submit the same before the Director, Elementary Education, Assam. The Director, Elementary Education, Assam, on receipt of such representations from the petitioners, shall place the same before the High Power Committee for consideration. The High Power Committee, shall consider the case of each of the petitioners, in the light of the directions passed hereinabove, and pass orders, with respect to the claims made by each of the Writ petitioners Page No.# 7/7 within a period of 3 (Three) months from the date the representations, preferred by the petitioners, are placed before it by the Director, Elementary Education, Assam. 10. The decision, as arrived at, in the respect of each of the petitioners by the High Power Committee, shall be communicated to the petitioners by the Director, Elementary Education, Assam, within a period of further 1(One) month after the consideration in their cases are so made by the High Power Committee. The claim of the petitioners for provincialization of their services be regulated in terms of the decision arrived in respect of each of them by the High Power Committee. 11. With the above observations and directions, the present Writ Petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant