Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010094542022 2026:GAU-AS:857 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3258/2022 BONTI HAZARIKA W/O- PRADIP BORA, R/O- VILL.- DULIAGAON, P.O. MISAMARA, DIST. GOLAGHAT, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19. 3:THE DISTRICT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GOLAGHAT ASSAM 4:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS GOLAGHAT ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. J LASKAR, Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, EDU Linked Case : WP(C)/3063/2022 PABITRA KUMAR BARMAN S/O- LT. NARENDRA CHANDRA BARMAN R/O- VILL. MEDHIPARA P.O. NIDANPUR Page No.# 2/6 DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECY. TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI- 06. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19. 3:THE DISTRICT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GOALPARA ASSAM. 4:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS GOALPARA ASSAM. ------------ Advocate for : MR. J LASKAR Advocate for : SC SEC. EDU. appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. Linked Case : WP(C)/9497/2019 BIPIN CHULADHARA AND 2 ORS. S/O PODESWAR CHULADHARA VILL. CHULADHARA P.O. NEMUGURI DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM 2: PRADIP SAHU S/O SOBNATH SAHU VILL. GOHAIN GAON P.O. NEMUGURI DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM 3: ARCHANA RAJKUMARI W/O GIRIN BORGAHAI Page No.# 3/6 VILL. BOKOTA DHEKEICHIGA P.O. NONGGALAMARA DIST. SIVASAGAR ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-6 2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 3:THE DISTRICT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SIVASAGAR ASSAM 4:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS SIVASAGAR ASSAM ------------ Advocate for : MR. J LASKAR Advocate for : GA ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS. BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR O R D E R 27.01.2026 Heard Mr. J. Laskar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) No.3258/2022, WP(C) No.9497/2019 and WP(C) No.3063/2022. Also heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department appearing for the respondents. 2. In WP(C) No.3258/2022, the petitioner has made the following prayer:- Page No.# 4/6 “In the premises aforesaid, it therefore, prayed that Your Lordships may be pleased to admit this petition call for records of the case, issue Rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to Why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and or any other appropriate writ order or directior should not be issued to set aside the impugned speaking order dated 23.02.2022 issued by the respondent no.2 and thereby provincialise the service of the petitioner as Hind Teacher of her School w.e.f. 01.01.2013 with all service benefits and cause and causes being shown may be pleased to make the Rule absolute giving full and complete relief to the petitioners and/or pass such other or further order or orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper” 3. The order dated 23.02.2022 challenged in WP(C) No.3258/2022 had recorded as follows:- “It may be mentioned that in compliance of the order dated 03.10.2018 passed in the WP(C) No.6804/2017, the Government vide order No.AHE.15/2019/34, dated 24.09.2019 granted benefits of provincialisation of services in respect of Sri Dilip Das, the posts already sanctioned earlier in the name of the institution. But provincialisation order was not issued in his name due to order dated 27.05.2013 in WP(C) No.2908/2013 filed by one Tarun Nath. In the instant case although the names of the Writ Petitioners were recommended by the concerned District Scrutiny Committees and State Level Scrutiny Committee, but no post was sanctioned for provincialisation of their service. The names of the Writ petitioners were recommended by the District Scrutiny and State level Scrutiny Committee and submitted to the Government. But the Government did not sanction any posts. The cases of the Petitioners were kept away from the purview of provincialisation not due to pendency of any court case, as in the case of Sri Dilip Das. As such, the matter of Sri Dilip Das and the present petitioners are not said to be similarly situated. On the above facts and circumstances, the services of hemen Sharma, Mrinalini Saikia & Bonti Hazarika cannot be considered for provincialised. With this the order dated 15.11.2019 passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the WP(C) No.5233/2016 filed by Hemen Sharma & 2 Orrs, Dist-Golaghat-vs- State of Assam is complied with.” Page No.# 5/6 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the case of the petitioners being similar to that of Dilip Das –vs- State of Assam and others, [WP(C) No.5233/2016], the respondents were under an obligation to have re-considered the case for provincialisation of the petitioners herein under the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 (in short Act of 2011). 5. Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department has submitted that in view of the judgment delivered in the case of Purnabati Brahma –vs- State of Assam and others [Writ Appeal No.283/2019], decided on 13.11.2019, no mandamus can be issued for consideration of the cases of persons who were left out from the scope of provincialisation under the Act of 2011. He, however, submitted that the aforesaid judgment also upheld the directions for consideration of the cases of the petitioners similarly situated for provincialisation under the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re- Organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (in short Act of 2017), if the petitioners are entitled to be considered under the same. He accordingly prays that the writ petitions may be disposed of in similar lines. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners deserve a consideration for provincialisation since similarly situated persons have been considered. 7. In view of the law laid down by the judgment and order passed in Purnabati Brahma (supra), these writ petitions are disposed of directing the respondent authorities to consider the cases of the petitioners under the Act of 2017 for provincialisation, if they are entitled for such Page No.# 6/6 consideration. This Court observes that while passing the impugned order dated 23.02.2022, the Director had not referred to the Act of 2017. The cases of the petitioners for provincialisation under the Act of 2017 will now be taken up without reference to the earlier order dated 23.02.2022, (which did not refer to the rights of the petitioners under the Act of 2017). It is provided that the petitioners shall be given a hearing on convenient time by the concerned authorities while considering their cases for provincialisation. 8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have been agitating their claims from the year 2013 onwards. 9. It is expected that the respondents would take up the consideration of the cases of the petitioners in due earnest and shall conclude the same as early as possible, in any case within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 10. It is also provided that if the case of any of the petitioners has already been taken up for provincialisation under the Act of 2017, the same shall proceed in accordance with law without being hampered by any observation made in this order. JUDGE Comparing Assistant