JUDGMENT : Kardak Ete, J. Heard Mr. A. K. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 4; Ms. D. D. Baraman, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate for the respondent No. 3 and Mr. B. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7. 2. Challenge made in this writ petition is to the order dated 05.02.2021 passed by the Director, Elementary Education, Assam, whereby the service of Zahidul Islam, the respondent No. 7 herein, has been provincialised as Tutor (Science) in Kochua Gaon M.E. Madrassa. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he was appointed as a Graduate Science Teacher in Kochua Gaon M.E. Madrassa on 11.02.2008 by the School Managing Committee and he joined his service on 12.02.2008. The petitioner is a Science Graduate and holds a Diploma in Elementary Education, which are the requisite educational and professional qualifications for a Science Graduate Teacher with a regular pay scale. Upon such appointment, the petitioner claims to have been teaching Science and Mathematics and his name appeared in U-DISE as a Science Graduate Teacher. 4. The respondent No. 7 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the said school by the School Managing Committee on 12.06.1992 and possesses the qualification of HSLC (Science). 5. In terms of the provisions of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (herein after referred to as “the Act of 2017”), a list of 5 (five) teachers of the said school, including the petitioner and the respondent No. 7, was submitted to the District Scrutiny Committee (DSC) for provincialisation of services. The name of the respondent No. 7 was shown as Assistant Teacher (Science), whereas the name of the petitioner was shown as Assistant Teacher (Science & Mathematics). The respondent authorities have provincialised the services of the teachers in terms of the recommendations of the DSC and the State Level Scrutiny Committee (SLSC) and the services of the respondent No. 7 have been provincialised as Tutor (Science) vide order dated 05.02.2021. 6. The respondent authorities have provincialised the services of the teachers in terms of the recommendations of the DSC and the State Level Scrutiny Committee (SLSC) and the services of the respondent No. 7 have been provincialised as Tutor (Science) vide order dated 05.02.2021. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that the provincialisation of the service of the respondent No. 7 as Tutor (Science) is in violation of the provision of Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 2017, as the respondent No. 7 does not have the educational and professional qualification to be appointed as a Teacher, being only educational qualification of HSLC (Science), whereas the petitioner is a Science Graduate having a Diploma in Elementary Education and is eligible and qualified to be appointed as a Teacher. 7. Mr. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the provincialisation of the services of respondent No. 7 has been carried out merely to accommodate him, despite his lacking the requisite educational and professional qualifications prescribed under the provisions of the Act of 2017 and that too at the behest of respondent No. 5. He submits that respondent No. 7 has never taught the subjects of Science and Mathematics. Therefore, the provincialisation of the services of respondent No. 7 is dehors the Act of 2017, which is illegal, and as such, the same is liable to be set aside and quashed and a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to provincialise the service of the petitioner. 8. Ms. S. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel for the Elementary Education Department, submits that the petitioner is a Science Graduate with a Diploma in Elementary Education and was appointed by the School Managing Committee in the year 2008, whereas respondent No. 7, possessing the educational qualification of HSLC (Science), was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the year 1992. She submits that, in terms of the provisions of the Act of 2017 and the recommendations of the DSC and SLSC, the service of respondent No. 7 has been provincialised as Tutor (Science) as he is senior to the petitioner and possesses the basic educational qualification required to be appointed as a Tutor. She further submits that there is no specific provision under the Act of 2017 for giving preference to higher qualifications. She further submits that there is no specific provision under the Act of 2017 for giving preference to higher qualifications. As per Clause 6(1)(b) of the Act of 2017, the services of Teachers in Venture Educational Institutions at the primary level are to be considered for provincialisation in the post of Teacher subject to fulfillment of the requisite educational and professional qualifications; otherwise, such employees are to be provincialised as Tutors. Since respondent No. 7 has been provincialised as a Tutor, the qualification of graduation with a Diploma in Elementary Education is not required. 9. She submits that, in order to be upgraded as a Teacher, a Tutor is required to acquire the prescribed educational and professional qualifications, namely graduation with a Diploma in Elementary Education, within a period of five years, failing which he or she shall continue as a Tutor. Therefore, there is no illegality in the provincialisation of the service of respondent No. 7 as a Tutor, as he possesses the basic qualification required for such appointment and is senior to the petitioner in terms of their respective appointments in the said school. 10. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for respondent No. 7, while subscribing to the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel, Ms. Chutia, submits that respondent No. 7 possesses the basic qualification of HSLC required for appointment as a Tutor. He was appointed in the year 1992 and has continued to serve in the said post until his service was provincialised as Tutor (Science), whereas the petitioner was appointed in the year 2008. He submits that, as per the provisions of the Act of 2017, the requirement of graduation with a Diploma in Elementary Education is prescribed for appointment as a Teacher, whereas provincialisation of services as a Tutor does not mandate such qualification. Rather, upon provincialisation as a Tutor, the requirement of possessing graduation with a Diploma in Elementary Education is to be fulfilled within a period of five years for upgradation to the post of Teacher. 11. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record as well as the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017. 12. 11. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record as well as the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017. 12. The petitioner was appointed by the School Managing Committee of Kochua M.E. Madrassa as a Science Graduate Teacher on 11.02.2008, whereas the respondent No. 7 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 12.06.1992. On the recommendation of the DSC and the SLSC, the service of respondent No. 7 has been provincialised as Tutor (Science). 13. As the assailment of the impugned order, whereby the service of the respondent No. 7 has been provincialised as Tutor (Science), is made while claiming provincialisation of the service of the petitioner as Teacher in terms of the Act of 2017, it would be apposite to refer to and consider the relevant provisions of the Act of 2017. 14. Section 2(t) of the Act of 2017 defines ‘Teacher’, as under: “(t) "Teacher" means Teachers, Assistant Teachers, Classical Teachers and also includes Lecturers, Assistant Professors, Associate Professors, Professors, Principal, Vice-Principal, Demonstrator, Headmaster, Assistant Headmaster, Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent and any person of the teaching faculty working in the Venture Educational Institution having required educational and professional qualification as per norms and standards fixed by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Central Act No. 35 of 2009), National Council For Teacher Education Act, 1993 (Central Act No. 73 of 1993), University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (Central Act No. 3 of 1956) and the relevant rules and regulations framed thereunder and any other Act as the case may be, as applicable on the day of provincialisation and whose services are provincialised under this Act in the post of teacher or in any other post in the teaching faculty but, not as tutor under this Act;” 15. Section 2(u) of the Act of 2017 defines ‘Tutor’, as under: “(u) "Tutor" means and includes Teachers, Assistant Teachers, Classical Teachers and also includes Lecturers, Assistant Professors, Associate Professors, Professors, Principal, Vice-Principal, Demonstrator, Headmaster, Assistant Headmaster, Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent in a provincialised educational institution under this Act who are not eligible for provincialisation of their services and whose services cannot be provincialised in the post of Teacher under this Act due to lack of his/her educational and professional qualifications required as per the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Central Act No. 35 of 2009), National Council For Teachers Education Act, 1993 (Central Act No. 73 of 1993), University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (Central Act No.3 of 1956) and the relevant rules and regulations framed thereunder and any other Act, as the case may be, as applicable on the date of provincialisation, however, his/her service is provincialised as tutor with separate terms and conditions of service, to be notified by the competent Administrative Department: Provided that a tutor shall not be eligible to hold the post of Professors, Principal, Vice-Principal, Headmaster, Assistant Headmaster, Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent, as the case may be, in an educational institution provincialised under this Act;” 16. Reading of the definitions of ‘Teacher’ and ‘Tutor’ shows that a Teacher is a person who possesses all the required educational and professional qualifications as per the norms and standards fixed under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, whereas a Tutor is a person who may not possess all the required educational and professional qualifications but whose services can be provincialised under the Act of 2017 and who is thereafter granted a period of five years to acquire such qualifications. 17. Section 6 of the Act of 2017 provides for the educational and professional qualifications of teachers to the extent that the services of teachers shall be considered for provincialisation in the post of Teacher subject to fulfilment of the eligibility criteria relating to educational and professional qualifications as laid down under the Act, Rules and Regulations, inter alia, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The services of a teaching employee shall be considered for provincialisation as a Teacher only if he or she possesses the requisite academic and professional qualifications prescribed under the relevant Acts, Rules and Regulations. 18. The services of a teaching employee shall be considered for provincialisation as a Teacher only if he or she possesses the requisite academic and professional qualifications prescribed under the relevant Acts, Rules and Regulations. 18. Section 7 provides for the educational and professional qualifications of a Tutor to the extent that a Tutor must acquire the prescribed educational and professional qualifications within a period of five years from the date of publication of the order of provincialisation of services of the Teachers or Tutors and upon acquisition of the required qualifications, he or she shall be upgraded to the post of Teacher in the appropriate cadre. If such Tutor fails to acquire the prescribed qualifications within the said period of five years, his or her case shall not be considered for upgradation to the post of Teacher after the lapse of the said period and he or she shall continue to function as a Tutor as per the terms and conditions of provincialisation. 19. The impugned order dated 05.02.2021, by which the service of respondent No. 7 has been provincialised as Tutor, clearly prescribes the terms and conditions, including the relevant provisions of the Act of 2017 and the rules framed thereunder. The provincialisation as a Tutor (Science) is on a fixed salary. Unless respondent No. 7 acquires the educational and professional qualifications required for appointment as a Teacher within the stipulated period of five years from the date of provincialisation, his service shall not be upgraded as a Teacher and he shall continue to remain as a Tutor. 20. On careful consideration of the matter in its entirety and upon perusal of the relevant provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder, as referred to hereinabove, there is nothing to indicate that for provincialisation of service as a Tutor, one must possess the educational and professional qualification of graduation with a Diploma in Elementary Education. The Act only provides that upon provincialisation as a Tutor, a person is required to acquire the prescribed educational and professional qualifications within a period of five years from the date of provincialisation for upgradation to the post of Teacher, failing which he or she shall continue to remain as a Tutor. 21. The Act only provides that upon provincialisation as a Tutor, a person is required to acquire the prescribed educational and professional qualifications within a period of five years from the date of provincialisation for upgradation to the post of Teacher, failing which he or she shall continue to remain as a Tutor. 21. No doubt, the petitioner appears to possess the educational and professional qualifications required for appointment or provincialisation as a Teacher; however, it is not mandatory for the authorities to provincialise the services of teaching employees as Tutors, as the provisions of the Act of 2017 and the rules framed thereunder do not envisage such requirement. 22. Vide notification dated 05.03.2021, the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Elementary Education Department, has notified the terms and conditions of service in respect of Tutors whose services have been provincialised in exercise of powers under Sub-section (4) of Section 8 read with Section 2(u) of the Act of 2017. A reading of the same indicates that Tutors are to assist Teachers in imparting quality education. It further indicates that only upon subsequent acquisition of the requisite educational and professional qualifications by such Tutors within a period of 5 years from the date of provincialisation of their services, they shall be eligible to be considered for upgradation as Teachers; otherwise, they shall continue as Tutors on a fixed salary. 23. Having considered above and as reflected in the provisions of the Act of 2017 with regard to provincialisation of the services of teaching employees of Venture schools as Tutors and the requirements of educational and professional qualifications for Teachers and Tutors, it is the view of this Court that there exists a clear distinction between a ‘Teacher’ and a ‘Tutor’. Provincialisation as a Teacher requires the educational and professional qualification of a minimum graduation with a Diploma in Elementary Education in respect of Venture schools, whereas provincialisation of service as a Tutor does not require such educational and professional qualifications. The requirement is to the extent that upon provincialisation as a Tutor, one is required to acquire the prescribed educational and professional qualifications of a Teacher within five years for upgradation as a Teacher; failing which, he or she shall continue as a Tutor. The requirement is to the extent that upon provincialisation as a Tutor, one is required to acquire the prescribed educational and professional qualifications of a Teacher within five years for upgradation as a Teacher; failing which, he or she shall continue as a Tutor. Thus, no provision is discernible under the Act that for provincialisation of service as a Tutor, one must possess the educational and professional qualifications required for Teachers, namely a minimum of B.A. or B.Sc. There is also no provision under the Act of 2017 which mandates that a person having higher qualifications is to be considered for provincialisation as a Tutor. Hence, the claim of the petitioner is negated. 24. Regard being had to the judgment dated 23.03.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 5772/2023 in the case of Md. Sahidul Islam vs. the State of Assam and Ors. , perusal of the same does not reflect any relevance to the present case, as the issue involved therein pertains to the provision of Section 3(i)(xi) of the Act of 2017 relating to the requirement of having at least one teacher each for Science and Mathematics, Social Studies and Languages and the claim was based on the subject-wise composition of teachers in the institution. On the other hand, the present case concerns the provincialisation of service as a Tutor vis-à-vis a claim for provincialisation as a Teacher and the interpretation of the eligibility criteria and qualification requirements under the Act of 2017. Since the issues involved and the statutory context are entirely distinct, the said judgment does not have any direct bearing on the present case. 25. In view of what has been discussed hereinabove, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has failed to make out a case warranting interference of this Court, as the provincialisation of the service of respondent No. 7 as a Tutor does not suffer from any infirmity, much less any irregularity. Thus, no interference is called for with the impugned order dated 05.02.2021 passed by the Director, Elementary Education, Assam. 26. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed being devoid of merit. No order as to cost(s).