JUDGMENT : N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J. Heard Mr. M. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. R. Sinha, learned counsel, appearing for the review petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. J. Khataniar and Ms. D. Mushahary, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department, appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present review petition has prayed for a review of the order dated 22.04.2024, passed by this Court in WP(C).No.7596/2022. 3. The facts in brief, leading to the constitution of the present Review petition, is noticed as under; The School Managing Committee of Dubi High School, a Venture Educational Institution, in pursuance to the resolution adopted by it had proceeded to appoint the petitioner as a Music Teacher in the School on 25.01.1998. The petitioner in terms of the said appointment joined her service in the school on 02.02.1998, and her such appointment was provisionally approved by the Inspector of Schools. The Government of Assam had enacted in the Assam Educational (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011, in order to provincialise the services of teachers working in various educational institutions in the State. The Dubi High School being found to be an eligible institutions for provincialisation of the services of the teachers working, therein, the names of the teachers working, therein, including the petitioner, herein, came to be forwarded for placing before the District Scrutiny Committee (DSE). The District Scrutiny Committee on verification of the service particulars of the teachers of the said school, including the petitioner, herein, recommended the name of the petitioner along with other teachers found eligible in the said school, for provincialisation of their services. Thereafter, upon further processing of the said proposal in terms of the provisions of Section 10 (4) of the Act of 2011, on the post requisite for provincialisation of the eligible teachers in the said school being sanctioned, and necessary notifications issued in this connection, the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, proceeded to provincialise the services of the teachers found eligible for provincialisation of their services. However, the name of the petitioner was not included in the list of teachers, whose services were provincialised in the School, wherein, the petitioner was working. It is to be noted that the Act of 2011, on being declared to be unconstitutional and invalid by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chandan Kumar Neog and Ors. Vs. It is to be noted that the Act of 2011, on being declared to be unconstitutional and invalid by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chandan Kumar Neog and Ors. Vs. State of Assam and Ors. [Judgment and Order dated 23.09.2006 in WP(C).No.3190/2011], the State respondents had enacted the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-Organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017. The case of the petitioner was considered under the provisions of the Act of 2017, and the District Scrutiny Committee, on verification of her service particulars had recommended her case for being placed before the State Level Scrutiny Committee. It is at this stage that the petitioner had instituted the connected writ petition being WP(C).No.7596/2022, praying for consideration of her case under the provincialisation of her service w.e.f. 01.01.2013, in terms of the provisions of the Act of 2011. This Court noticing that after the Act of 2011, on being declared ultra vires by this Court, the case of the petitioner was considered under the provisions of the Act of 2017, the said process however, being found to have not been taken to its logical conclusion, proceeded vide order dated 22.04.2024, to dispose of the said writ petition by directing the petitioner to submit a detailed representation before the Director of Secondary Education, Assam. It was further stipulated that the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, on receipt of the representation from the petitioner, shall place the recommendation made, in her favour by the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee, before the State Level Scrutiny Committee. Thereafter, the process was directed to be taken to its logical conclusion in accordance with the re-commendations as would now be made by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. The petitioner, herein, being aggrieved by the said order and claiming that her services would be mandated to be so considered under the provisions of the Act of 2011, has instituted under the present review petition. 4. Mr. M. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner’s case was duly recommended by the District Scrutiny Committee for provincialisation of her services much before the Act of 2011 was struck down. 4. Mr. M. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner’s case was duly recommended by the District Scrutiny Committee for provincialisation of her services much before the Act of 2011 was struck down. He further submits that the petitioner’s case, in the attending facts and circumstances involved, would have to be deemed to have been so provincialised by operation of law in view of the provisions of the Section 10 (4) of the Act of 2011, read with the provisions of Section 6, thereof. He submits that in terms of the schedule appended to the Act of 2011, a post of Music Teacher is mandated to be sanctioned for provincialisation of the Music Teacher working in the school, provided that such teacher is found to be in position w.e.f. 01.01.2006 or before. He submits that the petitioner being appointed in the Dubi High School by the Managing Committee of the school in the year 1998, as a Music Teacher, she was within the purview of the Act of 2011, for provincialisation of her services. He submits that there is no reason assigned as to the exclusion of the name of the petitioner from the purview of provincialisation, when services of other teachers in the school came to be provincialised vide order dated 20.08.2013, w.e.f. 01.01.2013. 5. The learned Senior Counsel in support of his submissions has placed reliance on a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mohar Ali Sheikh and Ors. Vs. State of Assam and Ors. reported in (2024) 5 GLT 689 . He also places reliance on a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nur Islam and Ors. Vs. State of Assam and Ors . [2025 INSC 1506]. 6. In the above premises Mr. M. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel, submits that the order dated 22.04.2024, passed by this Court in WP(C).No.7596/2022, would mandate to be reviewed. 7. Per contra Ms. D. Mushahary, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department, appearing for the respondents, by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the Act of 2011, having been struck down by this Court in the case of Chandan Kumar Neog (supra), it is a Act that is to be treated as non-est from its inception. 7. Per contra Ms. D. Mushahary, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department, appearing for the respondents, by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the Act of 2011, having been struck down by this Court in the case of Chandan Kumar Neog (supra), it is a Act that is to be treated as non-est from its inception. Accordingly, the petitioner cannot claim any right under the statute that has already been declared unconstitutional and no mandamus can be issued for enforcement of any right under the said statute already struck down. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the decision of the Division Court in the case of Mohar Ali Sheikh (supra) would not advance the case of the petitioner, inasmuch as, the said decision was rendered after the disposal of the connected writ petition preferred by the petitioner. She submits that a subsequent change of law or a later judgment cannot be projected as a ground for review under order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. She further submits that in the present review petition, the petitioner has not highlighted any error in the order dated 22.04.2024 and/or discovery of any new or important evidence, which would mandate this Court to review its own order. 8. Ms. D. Mushahary, has further submitted that similar prayer made before this Court for provincialisation of services of the teachers under the Act of 2011, after the said Act was set aside, as being unconstitutional by this Court, were rejected by both the Co-ordinate Benches as well as the Division Bench of this Court. In the above premises Ms. D. Mushahary, submits that the present review petition would mandate to be dismissed. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 10. The review petitioner in the present review petition has based her case for such review on the provisions of Section 10 (4) of the Act of 2011. D. Mushahary, submits that the present review petition would mandate to be dismissed. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 10. The review petitioner in the present review petition has based her case for such review on the provisions of Section 10 (4) of the Act of 2011. Sub Section (3) of Section 10 of the said Act of 2011, mandates that the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee, shall first scrutinize and then prepare a list of all venture educational institutions situated within the District, which are eligible in terms of the provisions of the Act, and, thereafter, proceed to scrutinize and verify the service records of all serving employers, who are eligible or would become eligible for being consider for provincialisation of their services. Sub Section (4) of Section 10, mandates that on completion of the scrutiny of the particulars of the teachers working in various ventures educational institutions, the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee, shall forward the verified list of eligible teachers, school wise, in accordance with the number of post specified in the schedule appended to the Act, to the concerned Director, who shall after making such further scrutiny, as may be required, forward the same to the concerned Department of the State Government for consideration and for issuance of notification in respect of all eligible institutions and employees eligible for getting their services provincialised. 11. Section 6 of the Act of 2011, mandates that w.e.f. the date of publication of the notification under Sub Section (4) of Section 10, the Superintendence and control of all educational institutions coming within the purview of the Act, shall vest in the said State Government. In other words on a notification being issued under the provisions of the Sub Section (4) of Section 10, the services of the teachers so included in such notification shall be deemed to have been provincialised under the provisions of the Act of 2011, and they would be deemed to have become Government servants. In the case on hand the name of the petitioner was duly recommended for provincialisation of her services, after scrutiny of her service particulars, by the jurisdictional District Level Scrutiny Committee. In the case on hand the name of the petitioner was duly recommended for provincialisation of her services, after scrutiny of her service particulars, by the jurisdictional District Level Scrutiny Committee. However, the name of the petitioner was not included in the order dated 20.08.2013, passed by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, provincialising the services of teachers working in Dubi High School w.e.f. 01.01.2013. The schedule appended to the Act of 2013, with regard to the maximum number of employees entitled to have their services provincialised in each educational institution, in so far as, it concerns High School, amongst others, also provides for creation of a post of Music Teacher, wherein, the Music teacher is in position in the school since 01.01.2006 or before. In the case on hand the petitioner is found to have been serving in the school as a Music Teacher w.e.f. 1998. However, vide the order dated 20.08.2013, while sanctioning posts, to the said School and provincialising the services of eligible teachers and staff against the posts so sanctioned, a post of Music Teacher is not found to have been sanctioned to the said school and accordingly, the services of the petitioner was also not provincialised. 12. After the enactment of the Act of 2017, the same was assailed before this Court in a number of writ petitions including a writ petition instituted by Music Teachers, similarly situated like the petitioner, herein. A Division Bench of this Court vide Judgment and Order dated 04.10.2024, proceeded to dispose of the said writ petition being WP(C).No.8148/2018, along with other writ petitions pending before it. The Division Bench of this Court in the said decision had observed that the employees in whose favour recommendation were made by the Scrutiny Committee, had a vested right for their claims to be taken to its logical conclusions under the Act of 2011, as such it was held that such vested right of those employees could not have been taken away by the subsequent enactment of the Act of 2017. However, no mandamus having been issued in respect of the petitioner in WP(C).No.8148/2018, the petitioners in WP(C).No.8148/2018 assailed the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the said writ petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of instituting Civil Appeal No.13802/2025, arising from Civil Leave Petition being SLP(C).No.30099/2024 (Nur Islam and Ors. Vs. However, no mandamus having been issued in respect of the petitioner in WP(C).No.8148/2018, the petitioners in WP(C).No.8148/2018 assailed the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the said writ petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of instituting Civil Appeal No.13802/2025, arising from Civil Leave Petition being SLP(C).No.30099/2024 (Nur Islam and Ors. Vs. State of Assam and Ors.) [2025 INSC1506]. 13. The Hon’ble Supreme Court upon consideration of the issues arising in the said appeal proceeded vide order dated 18.11.2025, to dispose of the said appeal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the said order noticed that the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, has forwarded to the Secretary Government of Assam, Education (Secondary) Department, a list of 214 Music Teachers, for provincialisation of their services after due verification, however, no such notification being issued, litigation came to be instituted culminating in the proceedings before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. After noticing the conclusion drawn by the Division Court in the proceedings of Civil Appeal No.13802/2025, found the same to be in favour of the appellants, therein, and held that a prima facie case was made out for issuance of the writ of mandamus to the State and its authorities in terms of the prayer made in the connected writ petition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court further held that nothing contrary was brought on record to indicate that, at any point of time, there was any controversy/dispute with regard to the veracity of the list of 214 persons taken note of, in the impugned judgment by the Division Bench of this Court in the above noted writ petition. 14. Basing on the said conclusions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court proceeded to interfere with the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in WP(C).No.8148/2018 in paragraph-194, thereof, and a writ of mandamus was issued to the State authorities concerned in terms of the prayer in paragraph-4 of the said writ petition. The State Respondents were directed to complete the necessary consequential actions within a period of 03 (three) months reckoned from the date of the order. It further provided that the provincialisation in respect of the appellants, therein, would be effective from 01.01.2013. 15. Noticing the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, in WP(C).No.8148/2018, and other analogous matters as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nur Islam and Ors. It further provided that the provincialisation in respect of the appellants, therein, would be effective from 01.01.2013. 15. Noticing the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, in WP(C).No.8148/2018, and other analogous matters as well as the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nur Islam and Ors. (supra), this Court is of the considered view that it is to be examined now as to whether the present petitioner can also be held to be similarly situated like the appellants in the case of Nur Islam and Ors. (supra). It is also to be examined as to whether the name of the petitioner figures within the list of 214 Music Teachers forwarded to the Government by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, for provincialisation of their services. The said exercise would be permissible to be so done on an affidavit being filed in the matter dealing with the said issues by the State Respondents. The developments as noticed, hereinabove, although have occasioned after the passing of the order dated 22.04.2024, in the connected writ petition, this Court also notices that the issues involved, therein, were pending before the Division Bench of this Court, much prior to the date of institution of the connected writ petition by the review petitioner, herein. Accordingly, the decisions noticed, hereinabove, both by the Division Bench of this Court, as well as the Hon’ble Supreme Court would have a bearing on the issues raised in the connected writ petition and the said aspect of the matter not being considered by this Court vide the order dated 22.04.2024, this Court is of the considered view that an error had occasioned in the order dated 22.04.2024, requiring the said order to be reviewed. 16. Considering the facts as well as the developments taking place with regard to the issues involved, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner would also be required to be examined in the light of the said developments and accordingly to permit such consideration to be made by this Court, the order dated 22.04.2024, passed in WP(C).No.7596/2022, on review stands recalled. 17. Registry to restore WP(C).No.7596/2022, to its original file and list the same for admission hearing on 27.04.2026 18. With the above observations and directions, the present Review Petition stands allowed.