Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010184632024 2026:GAU-AS:3371 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4609/2024 BIPUL CHANDRA DAS SON OF LATE SAMBHU RAM DAS, ASST. TEACHER, DEULKUCHI ADARSHA M.E. SCHOOL, P.S.- TAMULPUR, BAKSA, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP ASSAM. 2:THE DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19. 3:THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION BODOLAND TERRITORIAL COUNCIL KOKRAJHAR. 4:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER BAKSHA MUSHALPUR ASSAM. Page No.# 2/7 5:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER GORESWAR. 6:THE HEADMASTER DEULKUCHI ADARSHA M.E. SCHOOL GORESWAR BAKSHAR ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D K DAS, MS P K DARJEE Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, SC, ELEM. EDU,SC, BTC BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER 06/03/2026 Heard Mr. D K Das, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. G D Chuodhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P N Sarma, learned Standing counsel, Elementary Education Department for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. B C Muchahary, learned Standing counsel, BTC for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5. None has entered appearance for the respondent No. 6. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to consider his case for provincialisation of his services under the provisions of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re- organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (in short, the Act of 2017). 3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner, herein, was appointed as an Assistant Page No.# 3/7 Teacher by the Managing Committee of Deulkuchi Adarsha M.E. School, Baksa. The school, being found to be eligible for consideration of the cases of the teachers working, therein, for provincialisation of their services under the provisions of the Act of 2017, the names of the teachers, including the petitioner, herein, came to be forwarded to the respondent authorities for consideration of their cases for provincialisation of their services. The name of the petitioner was incorporated in the list of teachers of the school at serial No. 5 and his date of appointment was shown as 28.01.2002. During the pendency of such consideration of the cases of the teachers of the said school for provincialisation of their services, Mohan Ch. Das, whose name was also forwarded for consideration of his case for provincialisation of his services, died on account of heart attack on 28.05.2018. The School Managing Committee, thereafter, adopted a resolution to upgrade the services of one Arun Kr. Das, Assistant Teacher of the school to the first post of Assistant Teacher in the said school and to allow the petitioner to occupy the post of Arun Kr. Das. The case of all the eligible teachers, thereafter, was placed before the District Scrutiny Committee. However, the District Scrutiny Committee did not make any recommendation in favour of the petitioner, herein and proceeded to recommend names of 6 (six) Assistant Teachers working in the school, including Mohan Ch. Das for provincialisation of his services. The said recommendation of the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee was forwarded to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam by the District Elementary Education Officer, Baksa. The matter on being further processed in terms of the provisions of the Act of 2017, the services of the teachers found eligible in the said school for provincialisation of their services, came to be provincialised as Tutors. The petitioner having been deprived of a consideration of his case for provincialisation of his services, had approached the respondent authorities. The District authorities, thereafter, forwarded such representation of the petitioner to the higher authorities. However, the claim of the petitioner not having been considered, he has instituted the present writ petition. Page No.# 4/7 4. Mr. D K Das, learned Senior counsel, appearing for the petitioner by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the fact that the petitioner was eligible for having his case considered for provincialisation, is apparent from the communications issued in the matter by the District authorities as well as the authorities of the Bodoland Territorial Council. He submits that in spite of the said position, the respondent authorities had not considered the claim of the petitioner for consideration of his case for provincialisation of his services under the provisions of the Act of 2017. He submits that the petitioner is eligible and entitled to have his case considered for provincialisation of his services and accordingly, submits that a direction be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2017. 5. Mr. P N Sarma, learned Standing counsel, Elementary Education Department, basing on the instructions received by him from the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, has submitted that although, the name of the petitioner is found to have been forwarded by the jurisdictional District Elementary Education Officer on two occasions for inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the list of teachers found eligible for provincialisation of their services in Deulkuchi Adarsha M.E. School, he contends that such inclusion would not be permissible, inasmuch as, the name of the petitioner was not recommended by the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee. He submits that in terms of the provisions of the Act of 2017, more particularly, Sub Section (6) of Section 13 of the Act of 2017, the recommendation of the District Scrutiny Committee in respect of eligibility of a teacher working in a Venture Educational Institution is mandated at the first instance, for further processing of his case for provincialisation of his services. Mr. P N Sarma, learned Standing counsel, Elementary Education Department submits that in absence of the recommendation being made in favour of the petitioner by the District Scrutiny Committee, further processing of his case is not called for and accordingly, the case of the petitioner could not be taken up for consideration for provincialisation of his services. 6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. Page No.# 5/7 7. It is seen that the petitioner was initially engaged as an Assistant Teacher (Sectional) in Deulkuchi Adarsha M.E. School, w.e.f., 28.01.2002. There were teachers senior to him in the said school, including one Mohan Ch. Das. However, Mohan Ch. Das, having expired before the cases of the teachers of the said school could be taken up for consideration under the provisions of the Act of 2017, the Managing Committee of the said school vide a resolution adopted in its meeting held on 04.06.2018, upgraded the services of the petitioner and had thereby, brought him within the zone of consideration for provincialisation of his services. The matter was, thereafter, seen to have been placed before the District Scrutiny Committee and the District Scrutiny Committee had recommended the names of 6 (six) teachers of the said school, including Mohan Ch. Das for provincialisation of their services. The name of the petitioner is not found to be incorporated either in the list of recommended teachers and/or in the list of teachers not found suitable for such recommendation. The intra departmental communications available on record reveals that the District authorities had forwarded the name of the petitioner to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam for inclusion of his name as an eligible teacher for having his services provincialised in terms of the resolution adopted by the Managing Committee of the said school on 04.06.2018. 8. The Director of Elementary Education, Assam has submitted that although, the name of the petitioner was forwarded by the jurisdictional District Elementary Education Officer, no recommendation made in favour of the petitioner by the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee came to be forwarded in the matter. 9. It is stated that in terms of the provisions of Sub Section (6) of Section 13 of the said Act of 2017, it is the District Scrutiny Committee, which is to first scrutinize and prepare a list of all Venture Educational Institutions within the District, which are eligible in terms of the provisions of the Act and thereafter, proceed to scrutinize and verify the service records of all the serving teachers, who are eligible or would become eligible for being considered for provincialisation of their services. 10. 10. It is projected that in absence of a recommendation made by the District Scrutiny Committee with regard to the eligibility of the petitioner, herein, after scrutinizing his service records, it would not be permissible for the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, to Page No.# 6/7 process the matter any further for consideration of the case of the petitioner for provincialisation of his services. The stand taken by the respondent authorities has been noticed by this Court and this Court also finds that the provisions of Sub Section (6) of Section 13 of the Act of 2017 requires the case of an eligible teachers in a Venture Education Institution covered by the provisions of the Act of 2017 to be first scrutinized by the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee and it is only thereafter that the same would be permissible to be placed before the State Level Scrutiny Committee and thereafter, send to the Government. 11. The above being the stand of the respondents, this court is of the considered view that the present writ petition need not be detained any further and can be disposed of directing the petitioner, herein, to submit a representation before the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, praying for placing of his case before the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee for examining as to whether he is eligible for having his services provincialised in Deulkuchi Adarsha M.E. School. 12. The Director of Elementary Education, Assam, on receipt of such representation from the petitioner, herein, shall within a period of 1 (one) month, thereafter, place the same before the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee and require the said committee to submit its recommendation in the matter after making due scrutiny of the service records of the petitioner in the school in question, within a further period of 1 (one) month. 13. In the event, the District Scrutiny Committee, on scrutinizing the service records of the petitioner finds the petitioner to be eligible for having his case considered for provincialisation of his services and the recommendation to the effect is made, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam shall thereafter, process the matter strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2017 and take the same to its logical conclusion, within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of recommendation from the District Scrutiny Committee. The case of the petitioner for provincialisation of his services be dealt with in terms of the recommendations that would now be made in the matter by the State Level Scrutiny Committee. The entire exercise be carried out within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of a representation from the petitioner in terms of the directions passed, Page No.# 7/7 hereinabove. 14. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant