Page No.# 1/13 GAHC010103662024 2026:GAU-AS:12312 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2788/2024 SUNIL KAKATI SON OF LATE HUMESWAR KAKATI, R/O- LAGUWATI ROUMORA, P.S.- MAJULI GARAMUR, DIST.- MAJULI, ASSAM, PIN- 785104. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006. 2:THE DIRECTOR SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19. 3:THE SCRUTINY COMMITTEE (SECONDARY) REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN I.E. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (EDUCATION) GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN- 785621. 4:THE HEADMASTER MAMORANI PANCHARATNA HIGH SCHOOL Page No.# 2/13 NA-BHANGA P.S.- DERGAON DIST.- GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN- 785614. 5:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN- 785614. 6:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS GDC GOLAGHAT PIN- 785614. 7:DIPIKA BARUKIAL D/O- SRI JEURAM BARUKIAL RESIDENT OF DADHORAAHOM GAON P.S.- DADHARA P.S. - DERGAON DIST.- GOLAGHAT ASSAM PIN- 785614 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A DEKA, MR N SARMA,MR. R BORUAH Advocate for the Respondent : SC, SEC. EDU., GA, ASSAM BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI ORDER 26.08.2026 Heard Mr. A Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. H Terongpi, learned Standing counsel, Secondary Education for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 6 as well Page No.# 3/13 as Ms. S Konwar, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3 & 5. 2. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 15.03.2024 issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, whereby his claim for provincialisation of service as Assistant Teacher (Arts) in MamoraniPancharatna High School, Golaghat has been rejected. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, while serving as Assistant Teacher (Arts) in MamoraniPancharatna High School, Golaghat, was aggrieved by exclusion of his name from the process of provincialisation and replacement of his name by respondent No. 7. The petitioner had accordingly approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 6758/2013, seeking provincialisation of his service. It was the specific case of the petitioner that although respondent No. 7 had been appointed as Assistant Teacher (Arts) in the said school prior to him, on 04.01.1997, she remained absent from the school for prolonged periods and was consequently discharged from service on 12.03.2011. The petitioner, on the other hand, was appointed as Assistant Teacher (Arts) on 06.02.2007. 4. While considering the aforesaid writ petition, this Court noticed that respondent No. 7 had earlier approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 737/2013, challenging exclusion of her name from the list of teachers proposed for provincialisation. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 18.02.2013, permitting respondent No. 7 to make a representation before the competent authority for redressal of her grievance. 5. This Court, while disposing of WP(C) No. 6758/2013 by order dated 22.11.2013, noticed that the representation of respondent No. 7 was still pending consideration before the competent authority and that a District Scrutiny Committee had been constituted pursuant to Notification dated 30.11.2013. This Court was of the view that the dispute between the parties could appropriately be examined by the said Committee upon taking into consideration all the attending facts and circumstances and in accordance with law. Accordingly, the Director of Secondary Education, Assam was directed to resolve the dispute between the parties expeditiously by permitting both sides to place their Page No.# 4/13 respective cases before the competent authority. 6. Thereafter, an inspection was conducted by the Inspector of Schools, Golaghat District Circle on 04.12.2014. The inspection report, submitted on 05.12.2014, recorded, inter alia, that respondent No. 7’s name was not found in the attendance register as she had been terminated by the School Management and Development Committee on 12.03.2011. The report further recorded that respondent No. 7’s attendance had not been regular from 1997 onwards, whereas the petitioner was found to be regularly attending the school and his service was reported to be satisfactory. The Inspector of Schools accordingly recommended the case of the petitioner for provincialisation, observing that he was regular in the school and that his case was genuine and deserving of consideration. 7. The District Level Scrutiny Committee thereafter held a meeting on 07.01.2015 regarding the post and position of the petitioner and respondent No. 7. Upon re- verification of the documents and testimonials of both the petitioner and respondent No. 7, along with the spot verification report dated 04.12.2014, the Committee resolved that there was no change in its earlier decision/resolution dated 15.11.2012, which had initially been submitted to the Director of Secondary Education, Assam on 22.11.2012. The Committee further resolved that its earlier decision/resolution dated 07.08.2014 stood cancelled. 8. Notwithstanding the aforesaid resolution of the District Level Scrutiny Committee, the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, by order dated 07.01.2015, provincialised the service of respondent No. 7 against the vacant post of 3rd Assistant Teacher (Arts) allotted to MamoraniPancharatna High School at the time of provincialisation of the school vide order dated 03.06.2013. 9. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 799/2018 challenging the provincialisation of the service of respondent No. 7. This Court, upon examining the order dated 07.01.2015 and the materials relating to the proceedings of the District Scrutiny Committee, by judgment and order dated Page No.# 5/13 18.11.2019 directed the Director of Secondary Education, Assam to review the order dated 07.01.2015 and, if it was found that the District Scrutiny Committee in its meeting held on 07.01.2015 had indeed taken the resolution relied upon by the petitioner, to review the said order and consider provincialisation of the petitioner. The Director was further directed to undertake the exercise in accordance with Section 24 of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017. 10. Pursuant thereto, the Director of Secondary Education, Assam passed a speaking order dated 20.06.2023 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. The grounds taken were, essentially, that the 2017 Act did not contain any provision for provincialisation on humanitarian grounds and that the student strength of the school did not satisfy the requirement contemplated under Section 3(1)(ix) of the 2017 Act for creation/provincialisation of an additional post. 11. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed WP(C) No. 4116/2023. This Court, by order dated 28.07.2023, examined the speaking order dated 20.06.2023 and found that the first ground, namely, absence of a provision for provincialisation on humanitarian grounds, did not arise from the directions contained in the earlier order dated 18.11.2019. This Court also noticed that the minutes of the District Scrutiny Committee dated 07.01.2015 indicated that, after verification of the documents and testimonials of the petitioner and respondent No. 7 and the spot verification report, the Committee had maintained its earlier decision dated 15.11.2012 and cancelled its earlier decision dated 07.08.2014. This Court, therefore, found that the order dated 07.01.2015 had been reviewed on an erroneous premise and accordingly set aside and quashed the same. The matter was remanded to the Director of Secondary Education, Assam for reconsideration of the claim of the petitioner afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the petitioner and respondent No. 7 and thereafter passing an appropriate order in terms of the earlier judgment dated 18.11.2019. Page No.# 6/13 12. The relevant direction contained in the order dated 28.07.2023 reads as under: “This writ petition is filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 20.06.2023, issued by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, whereby the earlier order dated 07.01.2025 was reviewed in terms of the order dated 18.11.2019, passed by this Court in WP(C) No.799/2018. The WP(C) No.799/2018 was disposed of on 18.11.2019, with the following directions: “Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of directing the respondent authorities, more particularly, the Director of Secondary Education to review the impugned order dated 07.01.2015 and if the Director finds that the District Scrutiny Committee in their meeting held on 07.01.2015 had indeed taken the resolution as quoted above, the impugned order dated 07.01.2015 also requires to be reviewed and consider provincialisation of the petitioner. The Director will do the needful as provided under Section 24 of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Reorganisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017. The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order”. A perusal of the order dated 20.06.2023 would indicate that the case of the petitioner was rejected on two grounds, namely: (1) that there is no any clause in the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017, as Amended 2018, for provincialisation of service on humanitarian ground, and (2) the provisions of the Act of 2017, under Section 3(1)(ix) provides that there shall be additional post in the same subject in Venture High School, High Madrassa, if the minimum students appearing in the last final examination of the highest class for that subject exceeds 80 (eighty) students in each class for the second post and exceeds 150 in each class for the third post. Therefore, on the basis of the report of the Headmaster of the MamoroniPancharatna High School, Golaghat, the number of students who appeared in the HSLC final examination in the year 2014, 2015 and 2016 were only 26, 25 and 37 respectively and accordingly, the case of the petitioner could not be considered. On a consideration of the order dated 20.06.2023, the first ground that the case of the petitioner could not be considered on humanitarian grounds is not projected in the direction passed by this Court in the order dated 18.11.2019, in WP(C) No.799/2018. Further, the minutes of the District Scrutiny Committee, held on 07.01.2015, in respect of the petitioner would indicate that the Scrutiny Committee, after verification of documents and testimonials of the petitioner as well as the respondent No.7, along with the spot verification report dated 20.11.2014 of the Inspector of Schools, Golaghat District Circle that there was no change with regard to the recommendation of the case of the petitioner as on 15.11.2012 and the earlier Scrutiny Committee’s decision dated 07.08.2014 was cancelled. Page No.# 7/13 In that view of the matter, it appears that Director of Secondary Education, Assam had reviewed its very order dated 07.01.2015, on wrong premises and accordingly, the same is set aside and quashed. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the Director of Secondary Education, Assam/respondent No.2 to re-consider the matter afresh, with regard to provincialisation of the service of the petitioner, by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent No.7 and thereafter pass an appropriate order, in terms of the order dated 18.11.2019, passed by this Court in WP(C) No.799/2018, within two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.” 13. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, a hearing was conducted on 08.08.2023 in the office of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam. The petitioner, respondent No. 7, the Inspector of Schools, Golaghat and the Headmaster of MamoraniPancharatna High School were stated to have been present. Thereafter, the impugned speaking order dated 15.03.2024 came to be passed, once again rejecting the claim of the petitioner for provincialisation. 14. The Director, in the impugned order, recorded that respondent No. 7 had been appointed on 01.01.1997 and had joined on 04.01.1997, whereas the petitioner had been appointed on 06.02.2007. It was further noticed that one vacant post of Assistant Teacher (Arts) had been retained when the school was provincialised on 03.06.2013. The impugned order further records that the District Level Scrutiny Committee had initially proposed the name of respondent No. 7 on 07.08.2014, pursuant to which her service was provincialised on 07.01.2015. It was, however, also noticed that the resolution dated 07.08.2014 was subsequently cancelled by the District Level Scrutiny Committee in its meeting dated 07.01.2015. 15. The Director thereafter proceeded to hold that the minutes dated 07.01.2015 neither established the seniority of the petitioner over respondent No. 7 nor recommended the petitioner’s name for the 3rd post of Assistant Teacher (Arts). The Director also referred to the subsequent recommendation of the District Level Scrutiny Committee dated 04.03.2019 for provincialisation of the petitioner on humanitarian grounds. Page No.# 8/13 The impugned order further relied upon the absence of any provision in the 2017 Act for provincialisation on humanitarian grounds and the student strength of the school in the HSLC examinations of 2014, 2015 and 2016, namely 26, 25 and 37 respectively. On that basis, the petitioner’s claim was rejected for non-fulfilment of the eligibility criteria under the 2017 Act, as amended in 2018. 16. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that despite repeated directions issued by this Court, the respondent authorities have continued to reject the petitioner’s claim on the very same grounds which had already been considered by this Court. It is submitted that the earlier order dated 07.01.2015 granting provincialisation to respondent No. 7 stood set aside and quashed and the authorities were required to reconsider the petitioner’s claim in the light of the proceedings of the District Level Scrutiny Committee, particularly its resolution dated 07.01.2015. It is further submitted that the Inspector of Schools, after spot verification, had found respondent No. 7 to have been irregular in attendance and had recommended the petitioner’s case. According to learned counsel, these relevant materials have not been considered in their proper perspective. 17. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the Secondary Education Department submits that pursuant to the order dated 28.07.2023, a hearing was duly afforded to the concerned parties and the petitioner’s case was reconsidered. It is submitted that the impugned order is a speaking order and that, since the petitioner did not satisfy the statutory eligibility requirements under the 2017 Act, no direction for provincialisation can be issued. 18. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials available on record. 19. The controversy between the petitioner and respondent No. 7 has a rather chequered history. The school was provincialised on 03.06.2013, with one post of Assistant Teacher (Arts) being kept vacant. The petitioner and respondent No. 7 thereafter asserted competing claims to the said post. Page No.# 9/13 The record discloses that respondent No. 7 had approached this Court even prior to the petitioner seeking consideration of her claim for provincialisation. Her writ petition was disposed of by permitting her to make a representation before the competent authority. It was thereafter that the authorities were required to examine the rival claims of the parties. 20. The Inspector of Schools, upon spot inspection, specifically recorded the attendance position of respondent No. 7 and the petitioner and recommended the petitioner’s case for provincialisation. Thereafter, the District Level Scrutiny Committee, upon re-verification of the relevant documents, adopted its resolution dated 07.01.2015, whereby it maintained its earlier decision dated 15.11.2012 and cancelled the decision dated 07.08.2014. 21. The significance of the resolution dated 07.01.2015 cannot be overlooked. The service of respondent No. 7 had been provincialised pursuant to the earlier resolution dated 07.08.2014. That very resolution was subsequently cancelled by the District Level Scrutiny Committee. The cancellation was a fact which was required to be considered while determining the entitlement to the subject post. It is in this background that this Court, in WP(C) No. 799/2018, directed the Director of Secondary Education to review the order dated 07.01.2015 and, upon finding that the District Scrutiny Committee had indeed passed the resolution dated 07.01.2015, to review the earlier order and consider the provincialisation of the petitioner. 22. The subsequent order dated 28.07.2023 is even more significant. This Court, upon examining the speaking order dated 20.06.2023, found that the authority had proceeded on grounds which did not address the substance of the earlier judicial direction. The order dated 20.06.2023 was consequently set aside and quashed and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Thus, after the order dated 28.07.2023, the Director was required to undertake a genuine reconsideration of the petitioner’s claim in the light of the earlier orders of this Court and the material proceedings of the District Level Scrutiny Committee. Page No.# 10/13 23. It is surprising to note that despite the direction for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner afresh, the respondent authorities have rejected the claim of the petitioner on 15.03.2024 on the same grounds. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that during pendency of these proceedings, the respondent No. 7 retired from service on 31.07.2023. 24. More importantly, the impugned order does not satisfactorily deal with the legal consequence flowing from the cancellation of the resolution dated 07.08.2014 by the District Level Scrutiny Committee in its meeting dated 07.01.2015 and the subsequent setting aside and quashing of the order dated 07.01.2015 by this Court. The authority has recorded the existence of the resolution dated 07.01.2015, but merely recording the existence of a material document is not the same as considering its effect. The direction of this Court required the authority to reconsider the matter in the light of the said resolution and the earlier judicial orders. The impugned order, however, does not demonstrate such an exercise. 25. The respondents cannot, while purporting to comply with a judicial direction for reconsideration, arrive at the same conclusion by substantially reproducing the reasons which had already been found insufficient. A remand for fresh consideration necessarily requires the authority to apply its mind afresh to the relevant materials and to give effect to the findings and directions contained in the order of remand. The exercise of reconsideration cannot be reduced to a mere procedural formality of granting a hearing and thereafter repeating the earlier conclusion. 26. The issue at this stage is also not whether this Court should itself undertake the statutory exercise of determining the petitioner’s eligibility for provincialisation. The limited but important question is whether the authority has properly complied with the earlier judicial directions and undertaken the reconsideration required of it. On a careful examination of the impugned order, this Court is unable to find that the authority has undertaken such reconsideration in the manner required. 27. It is also relevant that the provincialisation of respondent No. 7, against the very Page No.# 11/13 post in question, has already been set aside and quashed. The position, therefore, is materially different from the one prevailing when the petitioner first approached this Court. The subject post cannot be treated as having been validly occupied by respondent No. 7 on the strength of the order dated 07.01.2015, which no longer survives. 28. During the pendency of the present proceedings, respondent No. 7 has also retired from service on 31.07.2023. This Court had taken note of the said fact on 05.01.2026 and, since the petitioner has no subsisting claim against respondent No. 7 personally, notice to her was deferred. 29. It is further relevant that on 05.01.2026 learned counsel for the petitioner made a categorical submission that the petitioner would be willing to accept prospective provincialisation in the event his writ petition is allowed. This submission substantially addresses any issue that may otherwise arise regarding retrospective displacement of service benefits or the equities of the parties. 30. Thereafter, on 29.01.2026, this Court also noticed that the provincialisation of respondent No. 7 had already been set aside and that the authorities were required to take appropriate corrective steps by either recommending or rejecting the name of the petitioner in place of respondent No. 7. Despite the aforesaid position, the authorities have once again rejected the petitioner’s claim on grounds which substantially overlap with those already considered in the previous rounds of litigation. Such an approach cannot be sustained. 31. It is well settled that when an administrative authority is directed by a constitutional court to reconsider a matter, the authority is required to act within the parameters of the order of remand. It is not open to the authority to disregard the findings and directions already rendered and to reach the same conclusion by relying upon matters which have already been considered or which do not address the specific issue requiring reconsideration. 32. In the present case, the impugned order does not disclose any fresh consideration of the effect of the District Level Scrutiny Committee’s resolution dated 07.01.2015, the Page No.# 12/13 setting aside of the order dated 07.01.2015 by this Court, or the specific directions issued in the orders dated 18.11.2019 and 28.07.2023. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from non-application of mind and failure to comply in substance with the directions issued by this Court. 33. At the same time, this Court is conscious that the question of provincialisation is ultimately governed by the statutory framework and that no direction can be issued contrary to the eligibility requirements prescribed by law. The Court, therefore, would not straightaway direct provincialisation irrespective of the statutory requirements. However, the authority is required to determine the petitioner’s entitlement by applying the correct statutory provisions to the facts of the case, while keeping in view the previous orders of this Court and without treating the earlier, quashed order of provincialisation of respondent No. 7 as an impediment. 34. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned speaking order dated 15.03.2024 cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside and quashed. 35. The respondent authorities, particularly the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, shall reconsider and take a final decision on the petitioner’s claim for provincialisation against the subject post of Assistant Teacher (Arts) in MamoraniPancharatna High School, Golaghat, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 36. While undertaking the aforesaid exercise, the respondent authorities shall take into consideration the resolution of the District Level Scrutiny Committee dated 07.01.2015, the inspection report dated 05.12.2014, the previous orders passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 799/2018, WP(C) No. 4116/2023 and the subsequent orders passed in the present proceedings. The authority shall not reject the petitioner’s claim merely by reiterating the grounds which have already been considered in the earlier proceedings, but shall determine his entitlement independently in accordance with the applicable statutory provisions. 37. In the event the petitioner satisfies the statutory eligibility requirements for the Page No.# 13/13 post of Assistant Teacher (Arts), the respondent authorities shall consider his case for provincialisation against the subject post in accordance with law, keeping in view the petitioner’s categorical submission that he is willing to accept prospective provincialisation. 38. In the event the petitioner does not satisfy the eligibility requirements for provincialisation as Assistant Teacher (Arts), the respondent authorities shall also examine, in accordance with the 2017 Act and the applicable rules, whether his service is liable to be considered for provincialisation as a Tutor, as contemplated under the statutory scheme. 39. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by a reasoned and speaking order, communicated to the petitioner forthwith thereafter, preferably within a period of three months from the date of this order. 40. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the ultimate eligibility of the petitioner for provincialisation and the competent authority shall take the final decision strictly in accordance with law and in the light of the observations and directions contained herein. 41. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant