JUDGMENT : RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J. Heard Ms. K. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Talukdar, learned Standing counsel for the Elementary Education department. 2. The primary challenge in this writ petition is to the impugned order dated 18.04.2023 passed by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education on 18.04.2023 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for regularization/provincialsation of his services. 3. The matter has a chequered history. The petitioner claims to be appointed by the order dated 15.01.1988 issued by the Headmaster Bhogpur M.E Madrassa according to the decision of the Managing Committee of that relevant point of time. The approval for the appointment of the petitioner came on 10.01.1992 approving the appointment order dated 15.01.1988. The school came to be provincialised in the year 1991 and since the particulars of the present petitioner had been dropped from the detailed particulars submitted for provincialisation at that point of time, the petitioner could not avail the benefits of provincialisation at that point of time. Several similarly situated persons had approached this Court by filing writ petitions, one of them being C.R No. 157/1998 titled Jiban Chandra Deka & Others -Versus- State of Assam & Others . The aforesaid writ petitions were disposed by directing the respondent authorities to frame a Committee to look into the grievances of the petitioner therein. The relevant portion of the order dated 01.09.2003 is reproduced herein below for a ready reference; “6. in view of the above, this bunch of cases will stand now disposed of with the following directions: (i) The cases of the petitioners in each of the cases will be considered in accordance with the norms, criteria and eligibility conditions prescribed by the policy document dated 13.1.2003 subject to the modification in Condition Nos.1 and 2, as stated above. (ii) The Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, shall within 7 days from today, constitute a Committee to examine the cases of the petitioners in the present bunch of case and such other cases, as may be referred to the said Committee, from time to time, by this Court. (ii) The Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam, shall within 7 days from today, constitute a Committee to examine the cases of the petitioners in the present bunch of case and such other cases, as may be referred to the said Committee, from time to time, by this Court. As the said Committee will be executing and implementing the policy decision taken by the state, this Court considers appropriate to leave it to the discretion of the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam to decide on the composition of the Committee with the suggestion that the Committee may be a high powered Committee consisting of 3 members and the present Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department may act as the Member-Secretary (iii) The Committee, upon due verification of the cases before it, shall within 6 months from the date of a constitution, prepare district wise lists of "dropped teachers" eligible for regularization in terms of the norms and criteria laid down as per direction No. above. The eligible persons, on being identified, shall be arranged in the district wise lists, in order of seniority. (iv) Suitable adjustments in the placements assigned in the district wise lists, as may be required, upon consideration of such other cases which may be referred to the Committee in the future, shall be made by the Committee. (v) Appointment against available posts in each district shall be made on the basis of the lists prepared. (vi) All appointments made would be prospective but will carry the benefit of past services for the purpose of computation of pensionary benefits. 6. All the writ petitions shall stand closed in terms of the above directions.” 4. Other writ petitions, one being W.P.(C) No.3976/2005, were thereafter filed wherein this Court by the order dated 01.03.2007 directs as follows; “9. The facts stated above, if they are correct, may sustain the views recorded by the high power committee with regard to L.P, school teachers. However, the said facts have to be supported by requisite evidence, after necessary enquiry in that light had been made. In this regard the Court has looked into Part-ll of the report of the high power committee which is a compilation of the basic facts collected by the screening committee. However, the said facts have to be supported by requisite evidence, after necessary enquiry in that light had been made. In this regard the Court has looked into Part-ll of the report of the high power committee which is a compilation of the basic facts collected by the screening committee. In none of the compilations recorded upon enquiry by the screening committee there is any evidence of the fact that any such exercise was performed by the said committee It is the considered view of the Court that in case of L.P. School what was really required to be determined is the student- teacher ratio at the time when provincialisation was made and to sanction that many posts of teachers that stood justified on the basis of the student population. If there were need for more teachers and yet lesser posts were sanctioned, the teachers already working, in order of seniority, to the extent of the posts necessary will be dropped teachers. As the aforesaid exercise does not appear to have been performed by the high power committee I am of the view that the said committee should be required to perform the task once again in so far L.P. schools are concerned. 10. With the above observations and directions all these writ petitions shall stand disposed of with the further direction that necessary and consequential action in terms of the present order will be initialed and completed by all concerned.” 5. A notification was thereafter issued by the Government on 16.07.2010 calling for applications. The petitioner, on not being granted the relief, had approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No. 2350/2013 wherein by order dated 23.06.2014, this Court observed as follows; “Having regard to the aforesaid submissions advanced, the writ petitions are disposed of directing placement of the cases of the writ petitioners before the High Power Committee for consideration, based on the school records and to pass necessary order for provincialisation of their services, provided they have complete d 2(two) years of services prior to the dates of provincialisation of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the respective schools, as the Government has accepted that the drop teachers, who were appointed 2(two) years prior to the date of provincialisation, would be provincialised. The said exercise is directed to e completed within a period of 3(three) months from today. The said exercise is directed to e completed within a period of 3(three) months from today. All necessary records shall be placed before the High Power Committee by the Commissioner & Secretary, Education (Elementary) Education. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of. No costs.” 6. The case of the petitioner was thereafter placed before the High Power Committee, which, by the order dated 09.02.2015, gave a report that the name of the petitioner was not listed in the detailed particulars submitted at the time of provincialisation of the school and therefore, the High Power Committee did not recommend the name of the petitioner for regularization of services. 7. The petitioner thereafter preferred W.P.(C) No. 7327/2015 in which this Court had observed that the reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioner for provincialisation as a dropped teacher, since the High Power Committee found his name to be not included in the detailed particulars submitted at the time of provincialisation of the school, was not ground enough to have refused to consider him as dropped teacher. The communication which had made known to the aforesaid rejection was set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for provincialisation as a dropped teacher and in doing so, appropriate reason thereof be stated either for accepting or rejecting such claim. 8. The matter was again placed before the High Power Committee and by the recommendation dated 13.02.2020 of the High Power Committee the petitioner name was recommended for regularization of services. The relevant portion of the recommendation can be found at Sl. No. 6 of the recommendation of the Minutes of the High Power Committee meeting held on 13.11.2019. The matter was thereafter forwarded to the Government for taking an appropriate decision on the recommendation and by the impugned order dated 18.04.2023, the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education rejected the claim for regularization or provincialisation. The relevant portion of the order is quoted herein below for a ready reference; “Thereafter, Department of School Education constituted Committee to verify the records pertaining to the matter vide Office Order No. 238816/124 dated 20-12-2022 and accordingly hearing was conducted on 9-03-2023. The relevant portion of the order is quoted herein below for a ready reference; “Thereafter, Department of School Education constituted Committee to verify the records pertaining to the matter vide Office Order No. 238816/124 dated 20-12-2022 and accordingly hearing was conducted on 9-03-2023. On perusal of the records, it is observed that the petitioner's name was provisionally approved by the DEEO, Kamrup on 10-01-1992 against the school but the school was provincialised in the year 1991 (as It appears in the Hon'ble High Court order dated-23-04-2018 in WP(C) No. 7327/2015 too). Hence, it is obvious that the required approval in respect of the petitioner was received after provincialization of the concerned school, That is the reason the High Power Committee vide its minutes dated 22-12-2014 rejected the claim of the petitioner stating that the name of the petitioner was not listed in the detailed particulars submitted at the time of provincialization of the school. On the other hand, in the present hearing too, neither the petitioner nor the concerned stakeholders could produce any other authentic documents in support of the fact that the required approval of the name of the petitioner was received before 1991. Decision : In view of above, the claim of the petitioner for regularisation/provincialisation of his services is hereby rejected.” This is the order which is now challenge in this writ petition. 9. Ms. K. Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is no dispute taken by the respondent authorities that the petitioner was in fact appointed on 15.01.1988 by the authorities of the school prior to the provincialisation of the school. The approval was granted in the year 1992. The provisions of law relevant for the purposes of taking over a teacher in a venture school required that such teacher should have put in atleast 2 years of continuous services before provincialisation. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order does not reflect that there was any finding recorded that the petitioner had not been in continuous in service prior to the date on which the services of other serving teacher in the school had been taken over by the Government. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order does not reflect that there was any finding recorded that the petitioner had not been in continuous in service prior to the date on which the services of other serving teacher in the school had been taken over by the Government. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of this Court to the undisputed appointment letter and the undisputed approval granted by the competent authority at that relevant point of time, both of which reflect that the petitioner had indeed been appointed on 15.01.1988. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues, that in fact, the very approval given in the year 1992 would show that the petitioner had been continuously serving in the school from 15.01.1988 otherwise the approval would not have been granted in the manner in which it was done. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ground given in the order dated 18.04.2023 by which presumptions were drawn that the approval been granted on 10.01.1992 was the reason why the earlier High Power Committee in its Meeting Minutes held on 22.12.2014 had rejected the claim of the petitioner, is unconceivable in law since the minutes of the aforesaid High Power Committee meeting itself did not reflect such a finding. She therefore prays that the petitioner would be entitled to be given the benefits to the other similarly situated teacher whose services were taken over by the Government in the year 1991. 10. Mr. B. Talukdar, learned Standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department has submitted that prior to coming to a finding by the Secretary to the Government, the department of School Education had constituted a committee to verify the records pertaining to the matter and accordingly a hearing was conducted. There are specific findings in the order dated 18.04.2023 which reflect the petitioner could not produce authentic documents in support of the fact that the required approval of the appointment of the petitioner was received before 1991. He therefore submits that when the approval was received after the provincialisation of the school, the case of the petitioner does not require any further consideration or adjudication and deserves to be dismissed. 11. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed by the order dated 15.01.1988. He therefore submits that when the approval was received after the provincialisation of the school, the case of the petitioner does not require any further consideration or adjudication and deserves to be dismissed. 11. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was appointed by the order dated 15.01.1988. It is not in dispute that the concerned competent authority at that relevant point of time had afforded approval for appointment of the petitioner in the particular school, although in the year 1992, but without recording any findings that the petitioner was not found to be serving in the school. The different documents which are annexed to the writ petition which have not been specifically denied or contested by the respondent authorities would also show that the authorities at the field level had given conscious certificates to the effect that the petitioner name had been dropped from the detailed particulars although his appointment and his service in the school were not disputed by any of the authority. I therefore find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, who had been appointed on 15.01.1988, had legitimate right under the appropriate provision of law under the Act 1997 to have her service taken over by the Government in an appropriate manner when the services of the other colleagues of the petitioner were taken over. 12. With regard to the contention raised by Mr. B. Talukdar that the petitioner or the concerned stakeholders could not produce any document in support of the fact that the approval of the name of the petitioner was approval prior to 1991, this Court fail to see as to how the said contention could be of any relevance to negate the claim of the petitioner. The relevant law requires that the petitioner must have served in the school for a period of 2 years before the services were taken over. The appointment letter and the documents which gave approval to such appointment are documents only to substantiate the date of appointment and the date of approval. The relevant law requires that the petitioner must have served in the school for a period of 2 years before the services were taken over. The appointment letter and the documents which gave approval to such appointment are documents only to substantiate the date of appointment and the date of approval. When the respondent authorities have not taken the ground that the petitioner was not found to be in continuous service prior to 2 years of services of the other colleagues have been taken over, as has been held in the earlier round of litigation in WP(C) No. 7327/2015 disposed of on 23.04.2018, this Court holds that such a submission during the hearing of the petition, without pending support in the impugned order itself, has to be heard, only to be rejected. 13. In view of the findings recorded hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the rejection of the prayer of the petitioner for taking over his services under the Act 1997 as has been done for his other colleagues in the year 1991 deserves an interference of this Court. The litigation between the contesting parties having being carried out for more than 12 years now and the right of the petitioner to have been considered for his service to be taken over by the Government had accrued to him in the year 1991. This Court does not deem it appropriate to remand back further again to the department to take a decision. 14. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education to issue the appropriate order effectuating the taking over the petitioner in the school of Bhogpur M.E Madrassa, Assam with effect from the same date the services of the other colleagues of the petitioner had been taken over. The respondents however would be at liberty to ascertain as to whether the petitioner had been continuously rendering his services in the aforesaid school from 1991 onwards for determining of the actual arrear of salary required to be paid to the petitioner in case he had actually had rendered services. It is clarified in any case, the pay and salary shall be calculated notionally. It is clarified in any case, the pay and salary shall be calculated notionally. The respondents shall pay the current salary of the petitioner for his services rendered, if any, immediately and continue to do so unless there is any impediment created in law in the future. The arrear salary of the petitioner shall be paid within a period of 6(six) months from the date of the receipt a certified copy of this order. 15. Writ petition accordingly stands disposed.