JUDGMENT : SHAMIMA JAHAN, J. Heard Mr. Z. Hammad, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Konwar, Learned Standing Counsel for Elementary Education Department as well as Mr. P. Nayak, Learned Standing Counsel for SSA and Ms. D.D. Barman, learned Additional Senior Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent No.4. 2. An opportunity was given to the state respondents to file affidavit, but more than one year has elapsed and they had not filed their affidavit and as such, this case is taken for disposal. 3. By this application preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 5- 12-2024 passed by the Director, Elementary Education, Assam, by which the petitioner was not considered for provincialisation of her services. Further she has also prayed for a direction to the authorities to provincialise her service. 4 . The case of the petitioner is that she was appointed as an Assistant Teacher of Pub Amlokhi A.S. Ahmedia L.P. School by order dated 15-3-1999 and by a subsequent order dated 1-3-2000, the petitioner was appointed as the Headmistress of the said school vide Resolution No. 1 owing to the leaving of the said post voluntarily by the earlier Headmistress. Thereafter on 12-05- 2005, Sub-Inspector of Schools, Batadrava Circle, Nagaon, prepared an inspection report and reflected the name of the petitioner therein as Headmistress along with three other teachers in the said school with the further reflection that there were 107 numbers of students and the infrastructure were also found to be intact. However, the petitioner's services was not regularised in spite of her eligibility for the same and aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had filed a writ petition being WP(C) No. 3854/2022 and this court by order dated 30-9-2024 had held that in the DISE Data, for the academic year 2009-10 of Pub Amlokhi A.S. Ahmedia L.P. School, Nagaon, the petitioner's name finds place at Serial Number 1 and that the petitioner was working in the said school since 1999 and also that her name appears in the DISE data for the year 2019-20 and further that the enrolment position of the said school during the year 2016-17 was found to be 104 and 72 respectively. 5. 5. It was further held in the said judgment and order that the petitioner is required to fulfill three requirements for provincialization of service and that she has fulfilled the said requirements and as such, it was ordered that the respondent No. 2 shall consider the provincialization of the services of the petitioner namely Zinnatun Nehar, Headmistress of the said school within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of the receipt of the certified copy of the said order. Pursuant to the said order, the Director of Elementary Education, th Assam passed an order on 5 December 2024 holding inter alia that the petitioner's name did not find place in the DISE Data till 2012-13 provided by SSA, Assam and as such, her services was not directed to be provincialized and the prayer of the petitioner was as such rejected by the said order. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1999 as an Assistant Teacher and thereafter, was appointed to the post of Headmistress in the year 2000 and that in the recommendation for provincialization of services of the teacher/tutor in the Lower Primary School, the petitioner was shown as number 1 in the said list. However, he submits that on 4th of February 2021, a notification was issued, by which, number of tutors were mentioned in the said list, whose services were eligible for provincialization and in the said list, the name of the petitioner did not figure. Thereafter, he submits that the Block Elementary Education Officer , Batadrabha, Nagaon by a communication to the District Elementary Education, Nagaon had forwarded the application received from the petitioner for provincialization of her service. 7. Mr. Z. Hammad, learned counsel submits that the petitioner was informed that her case could not be considered because her name was wrongly reflected in the said DISE data i.e. in place “Zinnatun Nehar” it was reflected as “Jinnatun Nehar” and in view of the said information, the petitioner made an application to the District Elementary Education Officer, Nagaon, that the spelling of her name was wrongly reflected and a request was made to verify by way of checking the documents that “Zinnatun Nehar” and “Jinnatun Nehar” are one and the same person. 8. 8. The learned counsel submits that she had submitted an application before the State Public Information Officer to furnish her with the DISE data maintained by SSA, Assam and in pursuant to the said application, a list was provided, wherein, the petitioner appears in DISE data for the year 2009-10 to 2019-20. As such, he submits that there was no impediment for provincializing the services of the petitioner and he also states that the judgment and order passed by this Court on 30.09.2024, makes the entire aspect clear. However, he submits that the respondent authorities had rejected the claim of the petitioner for provincialization on reasons best known to the said authority. 9 . On the other hand, Mr. P Nayak, learned Standing Counsel, SSA submits that the list of teachers to be included in the DISE data is forwarded by the school and the SSA on the said list prepared the DISE Data and the same is kept for one year for any rectification and after a period of one year, the SSA has no authority to rectify that and if any rectification is to be made, the same can be made by NUEPA New Delhi. He, as such, submits that the school has forwarded the name of the Headmistress of the school as Jinnatun Nehar for the years 2009 to 2012 and thereafter, the school has forwarded the name of the Headmistress as Zinnatun Nehar for the subsequent years and the list was accordingly made by the SSA and had shown that in the DISE data. 10. Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing Counsel submits that the petitioner had written a letter to the District Elementary Education Officer, Nagaon for correcting her name in the DISE Code of earlier years and that he submits two points with regard to the same. Firstly, the said application was not placed before the NUEPA New Delhi, who can rectify the said name and secondly, the necessary rectification was not done in view of the said letter. 11. Mr. Firstly, the said application was not placed before the NUEPA New Delhi, who can rectify the said name and secondly, the necessary rectification was not done in view of the said letter. 11. Mr. P. Nayak, further submits that in the previous proceedings before this Court, a contention was made that the petitioner's name did not find place in the DISE Data NUEPA New Delhi up to 2012-13 and he further submits that the th impugned order dated 5 December 2024 was passed after considering the order dated 30.09.2024 passed by this Court and on finding that the name appearing in the DISE Data for the year 2009-2012 is not of the petitioner's and it is of one “Jinnatun Nehar” and that the petitioner's name only finds place th after 2012-13, he submits that the order passed on 5 December 2024 impugned in the instant petition is a correct order and there is nothing to interfere with the same. 12 . In view of the said facts & submissions, this Court records the following observations. In the judgment and order dated 30.09.2024, it is reflected as stated by respondents that the State Level Scrutiny Committee (SLSC) had considered three parameters for provincialisation of services of the teachers and they are:- (i) Name of the school in DISE Data for the year 2009. (ii) Name of teachers in DISE Data for the year 2011 and afterward; and (iii) The enrollment position of the school during 2016-17 and 2017-18. 13 . It was also reflected in the said order that the name of the petitioner finds place at Serial Number 1 in the DISE Data for the Academic year 2009-10. The order of joining service was also reflected as 1999. Further, it was also found that the petitioner’s name finds place in DISE Data for the year 2019-20 and as far as the enrollment position is concerned, it was found for the year 2016-17 as 104 and 72 respectively. As such, this Court had held that the three conditions for provincialization of the petitioner’s service has been fulfilled as found by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. 14 . The argument raised by Mr. As such, this Court had held that the three conditions for provincialization of the petitioner’s service has been fulfilled as found by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. 14 . The argument raised by Mr. P. Nayak that the name “Jinnatun Nehar” and the petitioner “Zinnatun Nehar” is not of the same person, which according to him, was never an issue at any earlier point of time, is also cannot be held to be correct in view of other particulars mentioned in the data. Further in the year 2009-10, the DISE Data reflected against Jinnatun Nehar, the school shown was Pub Amlokhi A.S. Ahmedia L.P. School and the DISE Code was mentioned as 18100100115 and the place is mentioned as Batadrava and for the years, where the name is reflected as Zinnatun Nehar, the same school is reflected with the same DISE Code and for the same place and after 2013-14, the name referred in the DISE Code is Zinnatun Nehar. As such, it cannot be disputed that “Jinnatun Nehar” and “Zinnatun Nehar” is one and the same person. 15 . Further, the said argument was not raised before the earlier proceeding which culminated in the order dated 30.09.2024 and in which, the petitioner was stated to be eligible for provincialization of her service. In the impugned order dated 5-12-2024, it was simply written that petitioner's name did not find place in the DISE Data from 2009-2010 to 2012-13 without further clarifying that the name written for the year 2009-10 till 2012-13 as Jinnatun Nehar is a different person. 16 . Seeing the DISE number as well as the school and the place, it is beyond any iota of doubt that the name reflected as “Jinnatun Nehar” and “Zinnatun Nehar” belongs to one and the same person and as such, the reason for rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for provincialising her service is found to be wrong in the considered opinion of this Court, more so, in view of the fact that the name of the petitioner finds place in the DISE Data since 2009-10 till 2019-20. 17 . As such, respondent No. 2, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam is directed to provincialise the service of the petitioner forthwith, if not found ineligible on other grounds. 18 . 17 . As such, respondent No. 2, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam is directed to provincialise the service of the petitioner forthwith, if not found ineligible on other grounds. 18 . The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 19 . The petitioner is directed to place the certified copy of this order before the concerned authority at the earliest. Writ petition stands disposed of.