Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010066252022 2025:GAU-AS:12248 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2782/2022 NABAJYOTI BORAH S/O. TUNIRAM BORAH, VILL. KUHIYARBARI, P.O. CHAMAHIATI, P.S. JENGRAIMUKH, DIST. MAJULI, ASSAM, (WORKING AS HINDI TEACHER IN NO.2 SOMDIA TRIBAL HIGH SCHOOL) VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPTT., DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19. 3:INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS LAKHIMPUR DISTRICT CIRCLE NORTH LAKHIMPUR. 4:HEAD MASTER OF SOMDIA TRIBAL HIGH SCHOOL (NO.2). 5:THE DISTRICT LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE REP. BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER LAKHIMPUR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. K DEVI, MS S A KHALIFA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, EDU, GA, ASSAM Page No.# 2/8 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER Date : 08.09.2025 Heard Ms. K. Devi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. D. Muchahari, learned standing counsel appearing for the Elementary Education Department, Assam. 2. By way of this instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is seeking provincialisation of service of the petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed by the Managing Committee of Somdia Tribal High School in the District of Lakhimpur pursuant to the Resolution No. 1 dated 10.07.2007 to the post of Assistant Teacher (Hindi) and accordingly he joined on 12.07.2007. Thereafter, the service of the petitioner was provisionally approved by the Inspector of Schools, Lakhimpur, on 26.07.2010. 4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that after the Head Master of the said school received permission from the State Government on 20.05.1994 and received recognition from the SEBA on 18.12.2006, he submitted an application for provincialisation of services of Teachers/Tutor in High School/High Madrassa under the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of teachers and Re- organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’, along with staff pattern, results of the H.S.L.C Page No.# 3/8 examination and student ratios from 2014 to 2017 on 03.05.2017. However, upon viewing the same on the website, the petitioner found out that the name of the petitioner was not inserted in the said list. Accordingly, a representation was filed before the Director of Secondary Education. However, no fruits till date having been borne, the present writ petition has been filed. 5. Ms. K. Devi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that despite the petitioner fulfilling all the requisite criteria, the service of the petitioner is arbitrarily not provincialised. She further submits that since there are adequate students for the Hindi subject for both the years 2016 and 2017 for the concerned subject in the said school, the petitioner fulfills the requisite criteria, hence, the non action of the respondents for not provinsialising the services of the petitioner is totally arbitrary and illegal. 6. Per contra, Ms. D. Muchahari, learned standing counsel appearing for the Elementary Education Department, Assam, submits that it is evident from the records that the petitioner does not fulfill the requisite criteria for which the service of the petitioner has not been provincialised. She further submits that due to lack of minimum number of students as required under the said Act for appearing in the last final examination of the highest class of the said school, the petitioner does not fulfill the requisite criteria and hence, the prayer for provinsialisation cannot be entertained. 7. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments made by the learned counsel for the both the parties and also have perused the material available on record. Page No.# 4/8 8. The short question that falls for determination in this writ petition is whether the services of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher (Hindi) in the school in question are entitled to be provinsialised or not. 9. Apt at the outset to refer to the eligibility criteria for selection of educational institutions for provincialisation of services of additional teacher or tutor, as the case may be as provided under Section 3(1)(ix) of the said Act, which reads as under:- “3. Eligibility criteria for selection of educational institution for provincialisation of services of teachers/tutors:- (1) Subject to the provisions of Article 30 of the Constitution of India, the following categories of Venture Educational Institutions shall be eligible for being considered for provincialisation of the services of their teachers and tutors:- **(ix) For provincialisation of services of additional teacher or tutor, as the case may be, for a particular subject including the core subjects, in addition to the post mentioned in Section 3(1)(vii), in any Venture High School or Venture High Madrassa or Venture Higher Secondary School or Venture Senior Secondary School, the minimum students appearing in the last final examination of the highest class of the said school for that particular subject must exceed eighty for one additional post and one hundred fifty for the second additional post. Further, for provincialisation of services of additional teacher or tutor, as the case may be, for a particular subject, in addition to the posts mentioned in Section 3(1)(vii), in a Venture Degree College, the minimum students appearing in the last final examination of the highest class for that particular subject must be more than one hundred fifty for one additional post;” 10. Reading the aforesaid Section 3(1)(ix), it is apparent that in order for provincialisation of services of an Additional Teacher or Tutor Page No.# 5/8 for a particular subject in any Venture High School or Venture High Madrassa or Venture High Secondary School or Venture Senior Secondary School, the minimum number of students appearing in the last final examination of the highest class of the said school for that particular subject must exceed 80 for one additional post and 150 for the second additional post. 11. Apt to refer to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.2 on 10.09.2023, which reads as hereunder: “4. That, the deponent begs to state that the petitioner filed the instant writ petition to provincialise the service of the petitioner as Assistant Teacher (Hindi) at No. 2 Somdia Tribal High School, District: Lakhimpur. In this respect the deponent begs to submit that all the eligible teaching and non teaching staff of No. 2 Somdia Tribal High School District: Lakhimpur were provincialised vide order No. PC/Sec/Prov/19/2021/26 dated 04.02.2021 (Annexure 10 to the Writ Petition) with effect from 01.01.2021 in accordance with the provisions contained in the "Assam Education ( Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re- Organization of Educational Institutions) Act 2017 as amended in 2018 and The Assam Education ( Provincialisation of Services of Non Teaching Staff of Venture Educational Institution) Act, 2018. The 1st post of Assistant Teacher-(Hindi) at Somdia Tribal High School was provincialised as Intermediate Tutor and on the other hand the petitioner was holding an additional post i.e. 2 nd post in the subject of Hindi and due to lack of required enrolment of students as per provision of the Act his service was not provincialised. The deponent further states that although the District Level Scrutiny Committee recommended the name petitioner for provincialisation of service as Assistant Teacher (Hindi) at Somdia Tribal High School, District: Lakhimpur, but the State Level Scrutiny Committee did not consider the case of the petitioner for provincialisation in view of the report of the Board of Secondary Education of Assam (SEBA), that the total enrolment of Somdia Tribal High School, District: Page No.# 6/8 Lakhimpur in the year of 2016 for the Hindi subject was 16. 5. That, the deponent begs to state that as per provision of Section 3(1) (ix) of the Assam Education ( Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-Organization of Educational Institutions) Act 2017 as amended in 2018 for provincialisation of services of additional teacher or tutor for a particular subject there must be the minimum students appearing in the last final examination of the highest class of the said school for that particular subject exceed eighty for one additional post and the school of the petitioner did not fulfill the said criteria of the Act as such one additional post or 2 nd post of the said school in the subject of Hindi was not considered. On the above facts and circumstances the matter of provincialisation of service in respect of the petitioner as 2nd Assistant Teacher / Tutor in Hindi at Somdia Tribal High School, District: Lakhimpur could not be considered due to non fulfillment of the criteria laid down in the said Act.” 12. Reading the aforesaid averments of the affidavit-in-opposition, it is apparent that the stand of the respondent department is that the petitioner was holding an additional post, i.e., 2nd post in the subject of Hindi and due to lack of required enrollment of students as per provision of the said Act, the petitioner’s service was not provinsialised. 13. Apt also to refer to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner on 17.05.2025, which reads as hereunder:- “4. That while categorically denying the correctness of the statements made in paragraphs 4 of the affidavit-in-opposition, the deponent humbly begs to state that since there were adequate numbers of students in the Hindi subject, therefore, the District Scrutiny Committee recommended the name of the petitioner for provincialisation. However, the State Level Scrutiny Committee did not consider the case of the petitioner on the wrong premise that there were no adequate students for Hindi subject for the year 2016. It is stated that for the year 2016 the total numbers of Hindi students in the school were 120. As such, the petitioner was entitled Page No.# 7/8 for provincialisation of his services as 2nd Hindi Teacher. 5. That the statements made in paragraph 5 of the affidavit-in- opposition are wholly incorrect, baseless and misconceived and hence the same are categorically denied by the deponent. In this regard, it is stated that the total numbers of Hindi students have been more than 100 since 2014 and the petitioner obtained a statements showing the total numbers of Hindi students of the school. On bare perusal of the said statement, apparently for the year 2016, the total numbers of Hindi students were 120 whereas for the year 2017, it was 121. As such, the petitioner is entitled for provincialisation of his services as Hindi Teacher/Tutor and hence this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provincialize the services of the petitioner as Hindi Teacher/Tutor.” 14. Reading the aforesaid averment in the affidavit-in-reply filed by the petitioner, it is apparent that in response to the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the respondents, the stand taken by the petitioner is that the total number of Hindi students in the school for the year 2016 being 120, the petitioner was entitled for provincialisation of services as second Hindi Teacher. In support of the aforesaid stand taken, the petitioner has also enclosed a chart as Annexure-A to the aforesaid affidavit-in-reply, which is extracted hereunder for ready reference:- Years Years Years Years Sl No Class 2014 2015 2016 2017 Total Students Hindi Students Total Students Hindi Students Total Students Hindi Students Total Students Hindi Students 1 Class-vi 28 28 26 26 30 30 28 28 2 Class-vii 26 26 35 35 30 30 27 27 Page No.# 8/8 3 Class- viii 32 32 28 28 26 26 27 27 4 Class-ix 44 13 30 15 28 19 32 25 5 Class-x 35 13 27 13 30 15 27 14 Total 165 112 146 117 144 120 141 121 15. Hence, a perusal of the above extracted chart, it appears that admittedly, in the higher class of the school, i.e., Class-X for the year 2016, there are 15 students in the year 2016 and not 120 as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, admittedly, there is a lack of the required students for the Hindi subject in the said school for the particular years in question. That being so, it is clear that the petitioner does not fulfill the requisite criteria for provinsialisation of his services as additional teacher in the subject Hindi as laid down under sub-section IX of Section 3 of the said act. 16. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the unhesitant view that the petitioner has failed to make out any case whatsoever, warranting grant of the reliefs prayed for in the instant writ petition. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 18. No order as to cost. JUDGE Comparing Assistant