Page No.# 1/9 GAHC010279462025 2026:GAU-AS:10635 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/301/2026 JAGANATH DOLEY S/O- LATE ARUP KUMAR DOLEY, RESIDENT OF VILL.- NAYA BAZAR, P.O. MIRIPAM, DIST. MAJULI, ASSAM, PIN- 785105. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 06. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 DIST. KAMRUP METRO ASSAM 3:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS LAKHIMPUR DISTRICT CIRCLE NORTH LAKHIMPUR PIN- 787001. 4:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER LAKHIMPUR NORTH LAKHIMPUR 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 Page No.# 2/9 2017 HELD ON 25-09-2025 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. P MAHANTA, MS. P SAHARIA,C SARMA Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, SEC. EDU. 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. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner was initially appointed as a Assistant Teacher (Science) at Lepong High School and had joined his services on 02.04.2010. Upon enactment of the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011, the services of the petitioner and other teachers of Lepong High School, were considered for provincialisation of their Page No.# 3/9 services. On such consideration, the other teachers found eligible for provincialisation of their services, were provincialised in their services vide an order dated 25.07.2013, issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam. However, in respect of the petitioner, herein, his services were not provincialised, in view of the fact that his date of joining in the reports were erroneously shown as 04.02.2011, instead of 02.04.2010. Being aggrieved the petitioner approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(C).No.6517/2014. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.12.2014, 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. It is submitted that although a process of verification was taken up in pursuance to the directions passed by this Court, on account of the fact that the date of appointment of the petitioner, continued to be erroneously recorded, his case for provincialisation was not taken forward. The petitioner again approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(C).No.4717/2020. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.02.2021 with a direction to the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, to process the claim of the petitioner for provincialisation of his services, by taking into consideration the materials now brought on record with regard to the date of appointment of the petitioner. Page No.# 4/9 Accordingly, a process was initiated and the jurisdictional Inspector of Schools, was directed to submit a report, including a report from the District Level Scrutiny Committee. The Director of Secondary Education Department, Assam, vide an order dated 02.03.2023, also required the jurisdictional Inspector of Schools to verify the claims of the petitioner and other incumbents for provincialisation of their services under provisions of the said Act of 2017. On such verification being completed and a report submitted, thereon, the Director of Secondary Education , vide a communication dated 19.02.2024, requested the jurisdictional District Commissioner, to verify the claim of the petitioner and other incumbents whose names were so included in a list appended to the said communication for provincialisation of their services. The name of the petitioner was also included in the said list. In pursuance to the said process of verification, the reports submitted having established the claim of the petitioner for having his services provincialised, the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, vide a communication dated 23.12.2024 , forwarded the reports in a consolidated form to the Secretary, Government of Assam, Department of School Education. In the list appended to the said communication, the name of the petitioner, herein, figures at serial no.51 and a remark was so given against his name that his case may be considered for provincialisation. The case of the petitioner not being taken forward, the petitioner again approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(C).1639/2025. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.09.2025, directing the respondents to place the case of the petitioner in the Page No.# 5/9 next Joint Sitting of the Department of School Education and Finance Department. It is in the above background that the case of the petitioner was placed before the Joint Committee constituted for provincialisation of services of eligible teachers under the provisions of the Act of 2017. The case of the petitioner was considered by the said Committee in its meeting held on 25.09.2025, and on a consideration so made, the Committee resolved that the matter would require further examination as regards to the enrolment of students subject wise in the light of the provisions of the Act of 2017. Such conclusion was drawn on account of the fact that services of teacher were found to be provincialised in the school, wherein, the petitioner was so teaching under the provisions of the Act of 2011, in excess of the number so specified in the provisions of the Act of 2017. 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 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 Page No.# 6/9 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 as 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 materials available on record. Page No.# 7/9 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, constituting the Joint Committee is interfered with, yet, on the principle of finality of administrative action, it is impermissible to re-open already Page No.# 8/9 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 notifications 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.4 adopted by the said Joint Committee in its meeting held on 25.09.2025, pertaining to the petitioner, herein, stands set aside. 12. Having interfered with the decision of the Joint Committee, this Court directs Page No.# 9/9 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 decision 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