Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010279462025 2026:GAU-AS:10635 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/351/2026 DIMBA HAZARIKA S/O- LATE PHANIDHAR HAZARIKA RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAIDONGIA P.O.- RAIDONGIA DISTRICT- LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN - 784164 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION DISPUR AND GUWAHATI 06. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS LAKHIMPUR NORTH LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN-787001. 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER Page No.# 2/8 LAKHIMPUR NORTH LAKHIMPUR ASSAM PIN- 787001 5:JOINT COMMITTEE CONSTITUTED FOR PROVINCIALISATION OF SERVICES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ASSAM EDUCATION (PROVINCIALISATION OF SERVICES OF TEACHERS AND RE-ORGANISATION OF EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS) ACT 2017 HELD ON 25/9/2025 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN ------------ Advocate for : MR. P MAHANTA Advocate for : SC SEC. EDU. appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 31.07.2026 Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department, appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has assailed the decision arrived at by the Joint Committee in its meeting held on 25.09.2025, with regard to the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner by the authorities for provincialisation of his services under the provisions of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Service of Teachers and Re-Organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (in short Act of 2017). 3. The petitioner in the present writ petition, on being appointed as a Post- Page No.# 3/8 Graduate Teacher (Alternative English) at Rajgarh Junior College (now Rajgarh Senior Secondary School), had joined his services on 29.08.2001. Although, the case of the petitioner was forwarded for consideration under the provisions of the Assam Venture Educational Institution (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011, the services of the petitioner was not provincialised. After the setting aside of the Act of 2011 by this Court and the enactment of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers & Re-organization of Educational Institution) Act 2017, the case of the petitioner was again considered for provincialisaton of his services. It is projected by the petitioner that the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee, had recommended the case of the petitioner for provincialisation of his services. However, the name of the petitioner again came to be dropped by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, on the ground that the enrolment of students in the subject which the petitioner was teaching, i.e. Alternative English, was found to be excessive and accordingly, a re-examination of the matter came to be directed. Accordingly, a process for a verification of the service particulars of the petitioner was undertaken along with the verification carried out in respect of other similarly situated teachers. Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was also forwarded to the jurisdictional District Commissioner for a verification. On the receipt of the reports of the verification as well as on re-examining the same, the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, vide communication dated 23.12.2024 forwarded the case of the petitioner to the Secretary, Government of Assam, Department of School Education. In the list so enclosed to said communication dated 23.12.2024, the name of the Page No.# 4/8 petitioner figures at serial no.61 and an endorsement has been made, therein, against her name to the effect that the petitioner may be considered for provincialisation of her services. The provincialisation of the services of the petitioner not occassioning, the petitioner had again approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(C).No.1619/2025. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.09.2025, proceeded to dispose of the said writ petition, directing the respondent no.2, to examine the claim of the petitioner on merit and to arrive at a decision, thereon. Thereafter, the Joint Committee in its meeting held on 25.09.2025, vide Resolution No.3, did not accept the proposal for regularization of services of the petitioner and required a re-verfication of the enrolment status of students in English and Alternative English in the said school. Being aggrieved the petitioner has instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, at the outset has submitted that the primary grievance raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition pertains to the decision arrived at in his case by the Joint Committee, so constituted by the Government. In its meeting held on 25.09.2025. Mr. Mahanta, submits that the Joint Committee is not a body envisaged in the provisions of the Act of 2017, for the purpose of considering the cases of the teachers in Venture Educational Institutions for provincialisation of their services and/or cases of teachers who were left out from the purview of provincialisation when the cases of other Page No.# 5/8 teachers in their respective schools, were so considered under the provisions of the Act of 2011. Mr. Mahanta, submits that the constitution of the said Joint Committee was subject matter of challenge before this Court in the proceedings of WP(C).6870/2025 and other analogous matter. He submits that a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, on considering the said challenge so made, was pleased vide Judgment & Order dated 02.05.2026, to allow the said writ petition by setting aside the notification dated 27.01.2019, constituting the Joint Committee, along with subsequent notifications issued in this connection. 5. In the above premises, Mr. P. Mahanta, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submits that the decision of the Joint Committee, under challenge in the present writ petition, being of a Committee not constituted terms of the provisions of the Act of 2017, the said decision as arrived at by the Committee in respect of the petitioner, herein, would mandate an interference. He submits that a further direction would be mandated to be issued to the Respondent Authorities to process the claim of the petitioner for provincialisation of his services in terms of the decisions already arrived at by the Committees constituted under the provisions of the Act of 2017. 6. Mr. B. Kaushik, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court having already interfered with the notifications constituting the Joint Committee, the consequence would be that the case of the petitioner would now be required to be considered in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2017. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the Page No.# 6/8 materials available on record. 8. As noticed, hereinabove, the grievance of the petitioner is with regard to a decision arrived at by a Joint Committee, constituted vide notification dated 27.01.2019, for examining the proposals received by the Government for provincialisation of teaching staff of the schools of Venture Educational Institutions and further a notification dated 14.09.2022, issued towards reconstituting the said Committee. The constitution and re-constitution of the said Committee vide the notifications dated 27.01.2019 and 14.09.2022, was under challenge before this Court in the proceedings of WP(C).No.6870/2025 and other analogous matters. A Co- ordinate Bench of this Court vide Judgment & Order dated 02.05.2026, proceeded to dispose of the said writ petitions by interfering with the said notifications dated 27.01.2019 and 14.09.2022. The conclusions drawn vide the said Judgment & Order dated 02.05.2026, being relevant, is extracted, hereinbelow; “40. In the result, this court finds sufficient merit in these petitions and accordingly the same stand allowed. Under the given facts and circumstances following orders are being passed:- (i) The Notification Dated 27.01.2019, thereby constituting the Joint Committee, and subsequent Notification, dated 14.09.2022, modifying the first one, to consider the recommendations of the two statutory committees, being an extra statutory body, outside the scheme of the Act and also being ultra-vires of the Act and Rules made P57f57there under is liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, the same stands set aside and quashed. (ii) Consequently, the follow up action, initiated pursuant to the recommendation of the Joint Committee, in the present two writ petitions are illegal and inoperative. (iii) Though, the Notification, Page No.# 7/8 constituting the Joint Committee is interfered with, yet, on the principle of finality of administrative action, it is impermissible to re-open already settled cases. (iv) The respondent authorities shall process the relevant file of the petitioners in both these petitions, as per recommendation of the State Level Committee, for follow up action, strictly, in accordance with the provision of the Act. (v) Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out with in a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. (vi) The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent No.2 within a period of one week from today.” 9. A perusal of the final conclusions reached by the Co-ordinate Bench vide the said Judgment & Order dated 02.05.2026, would go to reveal that it was held that the Joint Committee was so constituted outside the scheme of the Act of 2017 and was accordingly, held to be ultra vires, the Act of 2017 and consequently the notification dated 27.01.2019, constituting the Joint Committee and the subsequent notification dated 14.09.2022, reconstituting the said Committee, came to be set aside and quashed. In the said Judgment, it was further directed that the Respondent Authorities would now process the claim of the petitioner in the writ petition involved, therein, as per the recommendations of the State Level Committee. 10. Applying the said decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, noticed, hereinabove, to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the decision arrived at in the case of the petitioner by the Joint Committee in its meeting held on 25.09.2025, would mandate an interference from this Court. 11. Accordingly, the Resolution No.3 adopted by the said Joint Committee in its meeting held on 25.09.2025, pertaining to the petitioner, herein, stands set aside. Page No.# 8/8 12. Having interfered with the decision of the Joint Committee, this Court directs the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education, to consider the case of the petitioner in terms of the proposal submitted in this connection by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, vide communication dated 23.12.2024. Such consideration be so effected expeditiously and a speaking order be issued to the petitioner, incorporating, therein, the decisions arrived at in the matter, within a period of 60 (sixty) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order from the petitioner, herein. 13. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant