Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010030282025 2025:GAU-AS:4980 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1957/2025 MAHODHAR KALITA S/O- LATE RAMESH CHANDRA KALITA, VILL- TITKA GARIA, P.O- PATHSALA, DIST- BAJALI, ASSAM, PIN- 781325. VERSUS STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION SECONDARY DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GHY- 781006. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION KAHILIPARA ASSAM GUWAHATI-781019. 3:THE SCREENING COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN OFFICE OF BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI-21. 4:ASSAM HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN BAMUNIMAIDAM GUWAHATI-21. 5:THE JOINT SECRETARY ASSAM HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION COUNCIL BAMUNIMAIDAM GHY-21. Page No.# 2/7 6:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS BAJALI BDC DIST. BAJALI ASSAM PIN- 781301 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR D C NATH, MR. M MONDAL Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU., BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 23.04.2025 Heard Mr. D.C. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. Das, learned Standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 6. 2. Extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is sought to be invoked by the petitioner, namely, Mahodhar Kalita, for quashing and setting aside the communication dated 23.08.2021, submitted by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam before the Special Commissioner, Secondary Education Department, and to direct the respondent authorities to provincialise the service of the petitioner under the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-Organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017. 3. Mr. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Subject Teacher in Assamese subject, by the School Managing Committee of Ganak Pukhuri Higher Secondary School, under Barpeta district (now in Bajali district), and the said school was upgraded from High School to Page No.# 3/7 Higher Secondary School (Arts) by the School Managing Committee in the year 1997. Mr. Nath also submits that subsequently, the school was accorded permission on 13.07.2005, by the Government of Assam and thereafter, under the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re- Organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (‘Act of 2017’, for short), the respondent authorities ought to have provincialised the service of the petitioner under Section 3(1)(i) of the Act of 2017 as the petitioner’s School was accorded permission for opening Higher Secondary Arts classes on 13.07.2005 by the competent authority, which is the basic eligibility criteria for provincialisation of service of the petitioner. But, the service of the petitioner has not been provincialised by the respondent authorities on the ground of non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the U-DISE Code. Mr. Nath further submits that the U-DISE Code is not a requirement for provincialisation of services of Higher Secondary School under Section 3(1)(i) of the Act of 2017, and that a Coordinate Bench of this Court, vide judgment and order dated 12.04.2023, passed in WP(C) No. 1353/2022 (Kishor Kr. Nath and Ors. vs. State of Assam and Ors.) and in a batch of writ petitions, directed the concerned respondent authorities, more particularly, the Director of Secondary Education, Assam to consider the case of the petitioners therein for provincialisation of their services as Teacher/Tutor by making necessary verification in terms with Section 4 of the Act of 2017 and without insisting upon their names being captured in the DISE Code of 2009-10 or prior thereto. Mr. Nath further submits that similar relief may be granted to the present petitioner also by directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for provincialisation of his service after making necessary verification in terms of Section 4 of the Act of 2017. Page No.# 4/7 4. Ms. Das, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 6 submits that the case of the petitioner is covered by an order of this Court, dated 05.02.2024, in WP(C) No. 463/2024, and as such, the respondent authorities have no objection in the event of disposing of this petition by granting similar relief to the present petitioner. 5. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the impugned communication dated 23.08.2021; the judgment and order dated 12.04.2023, passed in WP(C) No. 1353/2022 (Kishor Kr. Nath and Ors. vs. State of Assam and Ors.) and the order dated 05.02.2024, passed in WP(C) No. 463/2024 (Dipak Ch. Nath and 5 Ors. vs. State of Assam and 3 Ors.). 6. It appears that while disposing of WP(C) No. 1353/2022 (Kishor Kr. Nath and Ors. vs. State of Assam and Ors.), a Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under: “16. Therefore, a conjoint reading of the provisions referred to hereinabove in respect to the Act of 2017 there is no requirement for the names of the teachers working in the ‘Venture High School’ as well as ‘Venture Higher Secondary School’ as defined in Section 2(x) and 2(y) of the Act of 2017 to have their names captured in the DISE Code as is otherwise required in the case of a teachers/tutors whose services are to be provincialised in respect of ‘Venture ME School’ and ‘Venture Lower Primary School’ as well as ‘Venture Upper Primary School’ as defined in Sections 2(za), 2(zb) and 2(zc) of the Act of 2017 wherein the names of such teachers or tutors are required to be captured in the DISE Code up to 2009-10. Page No.# 5/7 17. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court take into consideration the case of the petitioners before this Court in the present batch of writ petitions. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the concerned respondent authorities have not processed the proposals for provincialisation of the services of the petitioners who are working in ‘Venture High Schools’ and ‘Venture Higher Secondary Schools’ on the ground that the petitioners’ names are not captured in the DISE Code. It is also the case of the petitioners that the concerned authorities have issued communication not to process such proposals of provincialisation of services of teachers/tutors whose names have not been captured in the DISE Code. 18. This Court, on the basis of the above analysis of the provisions of the Act of 2017, is of the opinion that the insistence of the respondent authorities of the names of petitioners who have been rendering services in ‘Venture High School’ and ‘Venture Higher Secondary School’ to be captured in the DISE Code of 2009-10 is contrary to the Act of 2017 as it is not the mandate of the Act of 2017 to fulfill such requirement in respect to such teachers and/or tutors working in ‘Venture High School’ and ‘Venture Higher Secondary School’ to have their names captured in the DISE Code upto 2009-10. Such insistence is arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the Act of 2017 and accordingly interfered with.” 7. Thereafter, another Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 463/2024 (Dipak Ch. Nath and 5 Ors. vs. State of Assam and 3 Ors.), vide order dated 05.02.2024, was pleased to grant similar relief to the petitioners therein by observing as under: “7. In view of the said position, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities, more particularly, the Director of Secondary Education, Page No.# 6/7 Assam to consider the case of the petitioners for provincialisation of their services as Teachers/Tutors by having the recommendation made in case of the petitioners by the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee scrutinized by the State Level Committee in terms of the provisions of Section 13(10). It is provided that the State Level Committee in terms of Section 13(11) shall be at liberty to carry out physical verification of the institution of the petitioner and call for such other record and documents as may be required for the purpose of verification of particular of the petitioners and also to examine as to whether the petitioners were in continuous service since the dates of their initial appointment. After verification of all such documents and records that may be produced before it, also carrying out of physical verification of the institution, the State Level Committee shall come to a conclusion with regard to the recommendation made by the District Scrutiny Committee in favor of the petitioners for provincialisation of their services against the post of Lecturers in their respective Departments in Vidya Bharati Senior Secondary School, Kamrup.” 8. Thus, taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and also taking note of the observations made by two Coordinate Bench of this Court, as discussed herein above, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition by directing the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent No. 2/Director of Secondary Education, Assam to consider the case of the petitioner for provincialisation of his service by carrying out physical verification of the school of the petitioner and other records and documents, as may be required for the purpose of verification and thereafter, to place the same before the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee, and if it is found that the Page No.# 7/7 petitioner has been continuously rendering his service since the date of his initial appointment, then the District Scrutiny Committee shall place the matter before the State Level Scrutiny Committee. However, the State Level Scrutiny Committee shall be at liberty to re-verify the service of the petitioner and other relevant documents to arrive at a conclusion independently as to whether the petitioner was working since the date of his appointment till the date of verification of his service, without insisting upon production of DISE Code of the year 2009-10, or prior thereto, or thereafter. 9. The aforesaid exercise has to be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall obtain certified copy of this order and the place the same before the respondent authorities within 20 days from today. 10. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant