Page No.# 1/15 GAHC010097862022 2026:GAU-AS:8123 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/3422/2022 BUKESON BAG S/O- GUBORDHON BAG, R/O- VILL- UPORLANGTHA, P.O. UPORLANGTHA, PS- BORPATHAR, DIST- GOLAGHAT, (ASSAM). VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETEARY AND 8 ORS. DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GHY-06. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GHY-19 KAMRUP(M) ASSAM. 3:THE DISTRICT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE JORHAT DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GOLAGHAT DISTRICT. 4:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER GOLAGHAT DISTRICT. 5:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER EAST BLOCK GOLAGHAT. 6:HEAD MASTER SIMANTA SARUPANI M.E. SCHOOL VILL- RATANPUR Page No.# 2/15 P.O.- TELISHAL DIST- GOLAGHAT (ASSAM). 7:NAREN CHANDRA MAHTO TUTOR SIMANTA SARUPANI M.E. SCHOOL VILL- RATANPUR P.O.- TELISHAL DIST- GOLAGHAT (ASSAM). 8:BISTU HASDA TUTOR SIMANTA SARUPANI M.E. SCHOOL VILL- RATANPUR P.O.- TELISHAL DIST- GOLAGHAT (ASSAM). 9:NANDESWAR KURMI TUTOR SIMANTA SARUPANI M.E. SCHOOL VILL- RATANPUR P.O.- TELISHAL DIST- GOLAGHAT (ASSAM). 10:THE MISSION DIRECTOR SARBA SIKSHA ABHIYAN AXOM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B K DAS, M N KHAN Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, MR P NAYAK(R- 10),MR. P. H. PHUKAN (R- 7),MS. N PHUKAN, SC, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPTT.,MR. J M GOGOI (R-8,9),MR. B D GOSWAMI (R-8,9),MR. D GOGOI (R-7),MR S BORTHAKUR(R-7),GA, ASSAM Page No.# 3/15 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 08.06.2026 Heard Mr. B. K. Das, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department; Mr. P. Khataniar, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent no.7; and Mr. B. D. Goswami, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent nos.8 and 9. 2. The petitioner in the present writ petition has presented a challenge to the provincialization as effected in respect of the respondent nos.7, 8 and 9 in Simanta Sarupani M.E. School. He has made a further prayer for a direction upon the respondent authorities to place his case before the jurisdictional District Level Committee for consideration of his case for provincialization of his services. 3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner was initially appointed by the Managing Committee of Simanta Sarupani M.E. School (hereinafter referred to as the School) on 05.02.1999. The petitioner projects that he has been, thereafter, continuing in his services in the said school and was teaching the students primarily the language subject English and his name figures in the DISE data for the year 2009-2010. With the enactment of the Assam Education Page No.# 4/15 (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-Organization of Educational Institutions) Act of 2017, the case of the petitioner school was taken up for consideration for Provincialisation of the services of the employees working in the said school. Thereafter, the respondent authorities on carrying out the process of verification in terms of the provisions of the said Act of 2017, proceeded to provincialise services of 05 (five) teachers working in the said school. Amongst the 05 (five) teachers so provincialsed, one of the teacher i.e. Arun Kurmi, came to be provincialised as the Headmaster of the said school. Along with Arun Kurmi, services of 04 (four) other teachers were so provincialised considering the number of students enrolled in the school at the relevant point of time. The petitioner who projects that he was working in the said school as an English Teacher, not having found his name in the list of eligible teachers published for provincialisation of their services, has instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. B. K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner after reiterating the facts, noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the respondent no.7 Noren Ch. Mahato, whose case was shortlisted for provincialisation of his services, had left the school prior to the benefit of the provincialisation being extended in his case. Mr. Das, further submits that the case of the respondent no.8, was found eligible by the Page No.# 5/15 respondent authorities for provincialisation of his services although he was junior to the petitioner by reckoning the date of his joining in the school. With regard to respondent no.9, Mr. Das, submits that the respondent no.9, was appointed in the school as a Hindi teacher and accordingly, he cannot be construed to be a language teacher and therefore, his services could not have been provincialised without first provincialising the services of the petitioner, herein. Accordingly, Mr. Das, submits that in any view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to have his services provincialised either against the post lying vacant on respondent no.7, not joining his services in pursuance to the provincialisation effected in his case and/or in place of the respondent no.9 i.e. the Hindi teacher. 5. Mr. P. Khataniar, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent no.7, has submitted that although the respondent no.7, was found eligible for being provincialised in his services, and orders in this connection were issued, the said orders were never implemented in his case, inasmuch as, he had already left the services of the school, on being appointed as a TET qualified teacher by the State Government. Accordingly, he submits that the respondent no.7, would have no further say in the matter. 6. Per contra Mr. B. D. Goswami, learned counsel, appearing for the Page No.# 6/15 respondent nos.8 and 9, at the outset has submitted that the challenge presented to the provincialisation of the services of the respondent no.8, would not be maintainable, inasmuch as, in a M.E. School, it is required that the services of a teacher who is teaching the subject of Science and Mathematics, is mandatorily required to be provincialised in terms of the provisions of Section 3 (xi) of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institutions) Act of 2017. Accordingly, he submits that the challenge to the provincialisation of the services of the respondent no.8, by the petitioner must fail. With regard to the challenge presented by the petitioner to the provincialisation of the services of the respondent no.9, it is submitted that the respondent no.9 is the Hindi teacher and the said subject being a mandatory subject in M.E. School, the respondent authorities had not committed any error in provincialising the services of the respondent no.9 by treating him to be a language teacher. 7. Mr. B. D. Goswami, by referring to the particulars of the teachers as available on record, more particularly in Annexure-4 to the writ petition has submitted that the petitioner and the respondent no.9, is found to have joined their respective services in the school in the same date, however, the respondent no.9 on account of being elder by way Page No.# 7/15 of age to the petitioner, the respondent no.9, for all intent and purpose, is to be deemed to be senior to the petitioner and accordingly, in that view of the matter also, there is no error committed by the respondent authorities in provincialising the services of the respondent no.9. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. At the outset, this Court would examine the effect of the provincialisation of the services of the respondent no.7, not been given effect to. It is a settled position that on the services of the employees in a Venture Educational Institutions provincialised under the provisions of the Act of 2017, the post so created either would be personal to them i.e. to say that the said post would cease to operate any further on the post being vacated by the incumbent whose services were so provincialised or the post would continue to be in operation and on a vacancy arising, therein, on account of any factor, the same would have to be now filled up by applying the provisions of the Act of Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised Schools) Rules 2018. 10. Having noticed the said position as obtaining in the matter, this Court notices that the learned counsel for the respondents has fairly submitted that the services of the respondent no.7, although being Page No.# 8/15 provincialised, such provincialisation of his services was never implemented i.e. to say that the post so created for the purpose of provincialisation of the services of the respondent no.7, was never utilized and the same continued to remain vacant. The post not having been filled up on account of the fact that the respondent no.7 had not joined against the said post, the post lying vacant now cannot be held to have lapsed on account of the respondent no.7 vacating the same, inasmuch as, he had never joined against the said post. The said post being specifically created for provincialisation of the services of one of the eligible teachers in the school, such utilization not having occasioned for the reason, noticed above, the said post in the considered view of this Court, in the facts and circumstances arising in the matter, would not be at the first instance be required to be so filled up by applying the provisions of the said Rules of 2018. Accordingly, the said post of Assistant Teacher as created for provincialisation of the services of the respondent no.7, in considered view of this Court, remains to be so utilized for provincialisation of the services of an eligible employee in the school. 11. Having drawn the said conclusion, this Court proceeds to notice the provisions of Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act of 2017. The provisions of Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act of 2017, being relevant is extracted, Page No.# 9/15 hereinbelow; “3. Eligibility criteria for selection of educational institution for provincialisation of services of teachers/tutors:- (1) Subject to the provisions of Article 30 of the Constitution of India, the following categories of Venture Educational Institutions shall be eligible for being considered for provincialisation of the services of their teachers and tutors:- (xi) In case of Venture Upper Primary School there shall be minimum three teachers or tutors at least one teacher each for (a) Science and Mathematics (b) Social Studies and (c) Languages: Provided that for additional posts it shall be considered in accordance with the norms and standard stipulated in the Schedule under Sections 19 and 25 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Central Act No. 35 of 2009).” 12. A perusal of the provisions of Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act of 2017, would go to reveal that in a Venture Upper Primary School, there shall be minimum 03 (three) teachers or tutors, with atleast 01 (one) teacher each for (a) Science and Mathematics; (b) Social Studies ; and (c) Langauges. Further the provisions of 3 (viii) mandates that in case of a Venture M.E. School, there must be 01 (one) Science teacher or tutor to teach Science and Mathematics subjects. 13. Having noticed the provisions of the Rules of the Act of 2017, applicable to the present proceeding, this Court in view of the mandatory provisions of Section 3 (1) (viii) requiring provincialisation of the services of the 01 (one) teacher teaching Science and Mathematics, the challenge presented by the petitioner in the present writ petition to Page No.# 10/15 the provincialisation of the services of respondent no.8, who is found to be the only Science teacher in the School, is held to be not maintainable. 14. Having drawn the said conclusion, this Court would now examine the challenge presented by the petitioner to the provincialisation of services of the respondent no.9. The learned counsel for the parties are ad-idem to the fact that the respondent no.9 was appointed in the said school as a Hindi Teacher and he continued to teach the Hindi Subject. In the scheme of the Act of 2017, this Court finds that the subject Hindi along with the subject of Sanskrit, Arabic etc, have not been equated with the language subject like English, Assamese, Bodo etc. In terms of the provisions of Section 3 (1) (xi) ,there being a mandatory prescription to appoint along with a Science and Mathematics teacher, a Social Studies teacher, a teacher to teach the language subject and it being found that the petitioner, herein, was teaching English in the said school, in the considered view of this Court, it was the services of the petitioner along with that of Bislesing Limbu (Mathematics teacher), Bistu Hasda (Social Science teacher), whose services were required to be so provincialised at the first instance in satisfaction of the main provisions of Section 3 (xi) of the Act of 2017. However, it is seen that the respondent authorities without assigning Page No.# 11/15 any reasons has proceeded to equate the subject Hindi with that of the accepted language subjects and proceeded to provincialise the services of the respondent no.9. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the provincialisation of the services of the respondent no.8, prior to that of the petitioner, herein, is not maintainable. 15. Having drawn the said conclusion, and this Court having also concluded that there was a vacancy available on account of the provincialisation benefits not being implemented in respect of the respondent no.7, Naren Ch. Mahato, this Court is of the considered view that the interference with the provincialisation of the services of the respondent no.9, at this stage would not be called for. However, the issue of release of benefits of provincialisation, shall be considered later in this order. 16. Considering the fact that there is no recommendation made in respect of the petitioner by the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee, this Court is of the considered view that the matter would now be required to be placed before the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee, to verify the service particulars of the petitioner and in the event, he is found to comply with the requirement as set out in the Act of 2017, to recommend his name against the post lying vacant on account of the respondent no.7, not joining against the same and/or Page No.# 12/15 the provincialisation order in his respect not being implemented. 17. In the event, the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee is of the view, for reasons to be recorded, that the post held by the respondent no.7 would not further be available for consideration of the case of the petitioner, herein, the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee, shall consider the case of the petitioner and the respondent no.9, in terms of the conclusions reached by this Court, hereinabove, and thereafter recommend the candidate so found suitable for provincialisation of their services. The petitioner in the event, is found eligible for being provincialised in his services, his such services shall be provincialised after completion of the process involved with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. the date the services of the respondent no.8 and other teachers in the said school was so provincialised, with all consequential benefits. 18. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to submit a representation before the Director, Elementary Education, Assam, along with a certified copy of this order staking a claim for being provincilaised in his services within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from today. On receipt of such representation from the petitioner, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, shall take all requisite steps to place the case of the petitioner before the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee. The Page No.# 13/15 jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee, shall thereafter verify the service particulars of the petitioner strictly in accordance with the conclusions drawn by this Court, hereinabove, in the present order. On drawing of such conclusion, the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee, shall place its recommendation before the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, for further processing of the same in terms of the provisions of the Act of 2017. 19. With regard to the prayer made for release of the salaries of the respondent no.9, it is directed that the same shall be so permissible only after the exercise is directed to be carried out in the matter by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, is so concluded and orders passed, thereon. In the event, the respondent no.9 is found to be eligible to be continued in his provincialised service, his salaries also shall be released with retrospective effect i.e. w.e.f. the date his salaries were so stopped in pursuance to the interim directions passed by this Court in the present writ petition vide order dated 25.05.2022. Till completion of the exercise now required to be undertaken by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, for compliance of the interim directions passed by this Court, in the present proceedings, vide order dated 25.05.2022, shall stand extended in so far as it concerns the respondent no.9, herein. Page No.# 14/15 20. This Court having rejected the challenge of the petitioner to the provincialisation of the services of the respondent no.8 i.e., Bistu Hasda, he is held to be entitled to all the benefits flowing, therefrom. Accordingly, it is directed that the respondent authorities shall, forthwith, release to the respondent no.8, his pay in arrears in pursuance to the order dated 05.02.2021, issued towards provincialising his services as a Tutor w.e.f. 01.01.2021. To facilitate the release of the said benefits to the respondent no.8, the interim directions as passed by this Court, in the present proceedings, vide order dated 25.05.2022, in so far as it concerns the respondent no.8 stands vacated. 21. The exercise now required to be initiated for compliance of the directions passed by this Court, hereinabove, shall be initiated by the Director, Elementary Education, Assam, and concluded within a period of 04 (four) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with the representation from the petitioner. 22. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Page No.# 15/15 Comparing Assistant