Page No.# 1/20 GAHC010179632024 2026:GAU-AS:8224 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4573/2024 ZAHANARA BEGUM @ JAHANARA BEGUM W/O- SHAHADOT HUSSAIN, VILL- KALANI JALAH, P.S. JURIA, DISTRICT- NAGAON (ASSAM), PIN- 782124 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 8 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DISPUR, GHY-6 2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 3:THE STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE (SLSC) REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY-19 4:THE DISTRICT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE (DSC) REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN CUM DEPUTY/DISTRICT COMMISSIONER NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782001 5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER NAGAON P.O. AND DIST.- NAGAON ASSAM Page No.# 2/20 782001 6:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER JURIA EDU. BLOCK DIST.-NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782124 7:NASIR UDDIN (HEAD MASTER) KALANI JALAH NAVA RASHMI MEM S/O- LT. ZAMAL UDDIN VILL- KALANI JALAH P.O. AND P.S. JURIA DIST.- NAGAON (ASSAM) PIN- 782124 8:MD. AZAHAR UDDIN ANSARY S/O- ABDUL KARIM VILL- KALANI JALAH P.O. AND P.S. JURIA DIST.- NAGAON (ASSAM) PIN- 782124 9:ZAKIR HUSSAIN S/O- JALAL UDDIN VILL- KALANI JALAH P.O. AND P.S. JURIA DIST.- NAGAON (ASSAM) PIN- 78212 Advocate for the Petitioner : MD A HUSSAIN, MR. T ISLAM,MR. K ALOM Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, MR J ABEDIN(R8),MR. M S MONDAL(R-9),MR. D A KAIYUM (R-9),MR. RASHIDUL ISLAM (R-8),MS B B AHMED (R-8),MR Z HUSSAIN (R- 8),GA, ASSAM Page No.# 3/20 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 09.06.2026 Heard Mr. A. Hussain, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard, Mr. B. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department, appearing for the respondent nos.1, 2, 5 and 6; Ms. M. Bhattacharjee, learned Additional Senior Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent nos.3 and 4; Mr. J. Abedin, learned counsel, appearing for respondent no.8 and Mr. D. A. Kaiyum, for the respondent no.9. None has appeared for the respondent no.7. 2. The petitioner in the present proceeding has assailed the provincialisation effected in respect of the respondent nos.8 and 9 as Tutors in Kalani Jalah Nava Rashmi M.E. Madrassa School, under the provisions of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-Organization of Educational Institutions) Act of 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2017”). 3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner in pursuance to a resolution adopted by the Managing Committee of Kalani Jalah Nava Rashmi M.E. Madrassa School, was appointed as a Assistant Teacher vide an order dated 26-08-2003. The petitioner contends to have joined her services in the said school w.e.f. 28-08-2003. The petitioner further projects that upon joining Page No.# 4/20 the said school, she was continuously teaching the subject of Assamese in the said school. After the enactment of the provisions of the Act of 2017, the school of the petitioner being found to be satisfying the eligibility criteria specified for provincialization of the services of the teachers working in the said school, the particulars of the teachers working in the said school came to be submitted before the respondent authorities by the respondent no.7, who at the relevant point of time was functioning as the Headmaster of the said school. The service particulars of the petitioner was also forwarded along with the other teachers working in the said school. The jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee on verifying the service particulars of the teachers working in the said school, proceeded to recommend the names of the respondents nos.7, 8 and 9, along with the names of 2 (two) other teachers working in the school for provincialisation of their services. The petitioner being aggrieved by the provincialization as effected in respect of the respondent nos.7 and 8 herein, approached this Court by way of instituting a petition being WP(C) No.3339/2021. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23-07-2021, accepting the contentions raised by the petitioner qua the respondent no.8, herein, Md. Azahar Uddin Ansary, while issuing notice in the said writ petition, was pleased to direct that the effect of provincialisation in respect of the respondent no. 8, herein, be not extended, until further orders. The said writ petition was subsequently disposed of vide an order dated 02-03-2023, Page No.# 5/20 requiring the petitioner to approach the State Government as Appellate Authority under Section 14 of the Act of 2017. The Appellate Authority was directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the respondent no.8 and thereafter, to dispose of the appeal. The interim order passed in the said petition was directed to be continued with, till the appeal as directed to be preferred by the petitioner is disposed of. 3.1 The petitioner, accordingly, preferred an appeal before the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education. The said appeal was disposed of by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education, vide an order dated 10-07-2023, by holding therein, that the name of the petitioner not being recommended by the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee, the case of the petitioner could not be recommended for provincialization of her services under the provisions of the Act of 2017. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner for provincialization of her services came to be rejected. 3.2. There being a delay in issuance of the order by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner had in the meantime instituted a contempt case being Cont.Cas(C).No.61/2024. This Court vide order dated 21-06-2024, passed in Contempt Case No.61/2024, noticing the irregularities occasioning in the passing of the order dated 10-07-2023, and the petitioner not being granted an opportunity of hearing prior to passing of the said order, had directed the Page No.# 6/20 respondent authorities to afford an opportunity for fresh hearing in the matter to the petitioner and thereafter, to pass appropriate orders in the appeal so preferred by the petitioner. 3.3. The Appellate Authority, thereafter, afforded an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after conclusion of the hearing vide order dated 08-07- 2024, proceeded to reject the claim of the petitioner for provincialization of her services by holding that the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher and not as a Language Teacher. Accordingly, her case would not be permissible to be recommended for provincialization of her services as per the provisions of the Act of 2017. The petitioner being aggrieved has instituted the present writ petition. 4. Mr. A. Hussain, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, by reiterating the facts noticed, hereinabove, has submitted that the petitioner was the only teacher teaching the subject of Assamese since the date of her initial appointment which had occasioned vide the order dated 26-08-2003. He submits that both respondent nos.7 and 8, are admittedly junior to her with respect to the dates of their respective appointments in the school. Accordingly, he submits that the juniors to the petitioner could not have been considered for provincialization of their services prior to such consideration being extended to the petitioner, herein. 4.1. Mr. A. Hussain, by taking this Court through the materials available in Page No.# 7/20 the present writ petition, has submitted that given the enrollment status of students in the said school, the respondent authorities had sanctioned 05 (five) posts to the school for provincialization of the teachers working, therein. He submits that as none of the teachers recommended for provincialization, had the requisite qualification, all the teachers were so provincialized as Tutors. He submits that a post of Headmaster was also not sanctioned to the said school in all probability because the respondent no.7, who was serving as the Headmaster of the said school did not have the requisite qualifications for the post. Mr. Hussain, after referring to the date of appointments of the teachers whose services have been so provincialised along with the subjects they were teaching in the school, including the dates of appointments of the respondent nos.7, 8 and 9 submits that the in terms of the provisions of Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act of 2017, there would be no dispute with regard to the provincialisation of services of Bharat Ch. Das as the Science and Mathematics Teacher, however he submits that with regard to the provincialisation of services effected in respect of the other teachers, a dispute would arise, inasmuch as, the petitioner basing on the date of her appointment in the school as well as the language subject taught by her, is senior to the other teachers except the respondent no.9, Zakir Hussain. He submits that Zakir Hussain being the Social Studies teacher, his accommodation is also not disputed. However, Mr. Hussain, submits that the provincialisation of the Page No.# 8/20 services of the respondent no.8 i.e., Md. Azahar Uddin Ansary, whose date of appointment in the school was 02.09.1997 and was teaching the subject Hindi ignoring the case of the petitioner who was teaching the language subject Assamese, would mandate an interference from this Court. He further submits that in terms of the provisions of the Act of 2017, the Hindi teacher is not considered as a Language Teacher and accordingly, the provincialisation of the services of the respondent no.8 as a Hindi teacher would mandate an interference by this Court. He submits that on an interference being made with the provincialisation of the services of respondent no.8, further direction is called upon to be issued to the respondent authorities to provincialise the services of the petitioner as a Language Teacher in the school. 5. Per contra Mr. B. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department, submits that the petitioner’s initial appointment being as an Assistant teacher and her case not being recommended by the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee, in terms of the provisions of the Act of 2017, further consideration of the case of the petitioner by the respondent authorities was not permissible and accordingly, by noticing the said position, the appeal preferred by the petitioner, came to be rejected. 6. Mr. J. Abedin, learned counsel, appearing for respondent no.8, by referring to the date of appointment of the respondent no.8 as well as by highlighting that the respondent no.8 was teaching the subject of Hindi in the Page No.# 9/20 said school has referred to the affidavit filed by the respondent no.8, in the present matter and has contended that the subject Hindi is a special subject and is mandatorily to be taught in a Upper Primary School along with the subject of Arabic which he contends to be a mandatory subject in the present school, inasmuch as, the said school was a Middle English Madrassa prior to it being designated as a Middle English School. Mr. J. Abedin, in support of his submissions has placed reliance on a notification 12.12.2000, by which a uniform guideline has been laid down to adhered by the authorities in the Education Department for the purpose of submissions of proposals for according permission/recognition to open new M.E. Schools/M.E. Madrassa Schools. He submits that in terms of the prescriptions made in the notification dated 12.12.2000, for the purpose of granting permission/recognition to a Upper Primary School a teacher for teaching the subject Hindi teacher is mandatorily required to be included in the list of teachers, teaching in the said school. Mr. Abedin by further placing reliance on a communication dated 09.12.2019, issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, has submitted that, therein, it was highlighted that Hindi being a compulsory subject along with Arabic in a Middle English Madrassa, absence of a Hindi Teacher/Tutor in a Upper Primary School as well as an Arabic teacher in a Middle English Madrassa would have the effect of depriving the students from learning the said compulsory subjects. 6.1 By relying on the said communication dated 09.12.2019, Mr. Abedin, Page No.# 10/20 submits that the Government even after the enactment of the Act of 2017, had realized the necessity for provincialising the services of a Hindi Teacher, inasmuch as, it was considered that the subject Hindi was a compulsory subject in a Upper Primary School. Accordingly, he submits that the concerned Committees having considered the subject Hindi to be the a compulsory subject in a Upper Primary School and recommended the case of the respondent no.8, who otherwise is qualified to teach the post of Hindi teacher for provincialisation of his services and the same having being accepted by the Government, the provincialisation of the services of the respondent no.8 would not mandate an interference from this Court. 6.2. Mr. J. Abedin, learned counsel for the respondent no.8, by referring to the provisions of Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act of 2017, submits that amongst the teachers whose services have been provincialised in the school, the respondent no.7 Nasir Uddin was provincialised as a Language Teacher while the services of Zakir Hussain was provincialised as a Social Studies Teacher and the services of one Bharat Ch. Das was provincialised as a Science and Mathematics teacher. Accordingly, he submits that the provisions of Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act of 2017, stood satisfied with the provincialisation of the said 03 (three) teachers. The enrollment of the school, in question, being more than 100, the respondent authorities had sanctioned further 02 posts to the school. He submits that the said 02 posts were mandated to be so filled up by recognizing that against the Page No.# 11/20 compulsory subjects i.e. Hindi and Arabic, services of no teacher teaching the said subject came to the provincialised. Accordingly, he submits that the respondent authorities had not committed any error in proceeding to provincialise the services of the teacher teaching Arabic subject i.e. Ayesha Siddique Begum and the services of the respondent no.8 Md. Azahar Uddin Ansary, who was teaching the Hindi subject. Accordingly, he submits that by reckoning the date of joining in services the petitioner and the respondent no.8, herein, the petitioner although is senior to the respondent no.8, herein, however, she being a teacher of Assamese subject and the respondent no.7, already having been provincialised in his services by reckoning him to be a teacher teaching a language subject, the services of the petitioner was not entitled to be provincialised as a language subject teacher. 6.3. Mr. J. Abedin, further by referring to the schedule as appended to the Rules of 2017, submits that in respect of an Upper Primary School, it is permissible to provincialise the services of a Hindi teacher/Arabic teacher/Language teacher. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent no.9 has adopted argument advanced by Mr. J. Abedin, learned counsel for the respondent no.8. It is further projected that the date of appointment of the respondent no.9, was prior to the date of appointment to the petitioner, herein, and was teaching the Social Studies subject and accordingly his services were provincialised by reckoning Page No.# 12/20 the provisions of Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act of 2017 and such provincialisation effected in his case would not mandate an interference from this Court. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 9. At the outset, this Court would notice the date of joining of the teachers whose services have been provincialised under the provisions of the Act of 2017. The petitioner was appointed in the said school on 26.08.2003. The respondent no.7 was so appointed on 23.03.2007, while respondent no.8 was so appointed on 02.09.2007. The respondent no.9 is found to have been appointed on 16.08.1997. 02 (two) other teachers who have not been arrayed as party respondents in the present writ petition, but whose services have been provincialised are Bharat Ch. Das, who was appointed in the said school on 11.08.1999 and Ayesha Siddique Begum, who was so appointed on 02.03.1995. Considering the dates of appointment of the teachers it is found that Ayesha Siddique Begum was the senior most teacher basing on the date of her appointment, while the respondent no.9 Zakir Hussain, who was appointed on 16.08.1997 was the next senior most. The person appointed after Zakir Hussain in the said school is Nasir Uddin i.e. respondent no.7 who had also functioned as Headmaster of the school during its venture stage. Thereafter, the petitioner is found to have been appointed in the said school. Accordingly, the petitioner is found to be the 5th senior teacher basing on the date of appointment in the Page No.# 13/20 school. Md. Azahar Uddin Ansary (Respondent No.8) whose date of appointment is 29.05.2009 is found to be the junior most amongst the teachers whose services were provincialised and is a party respondent in the present writ petition. 10. The provision of Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act of 2017, being relevant is extracted, 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).” 11. A perusal of the Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act of 2017 would go to reveal that in a venture Upper Primary School, there shall be minimum 3 Teachers/Tutors atleast 01 teacher each for (a) Science and Mathematics (b) Social Studies and Languages. In other words 3 (1) (xi) mandates that insofar as a Upper Primary School is concerned, services of atleast 03 teachers in terms of the provisions, thereof, services of the said teachers must be mandatorily provincialised. 12. Having noticed the provision of 3 (1) (xi), this Court would now Page No.# 14/20 examine amongst the teachers working in the said school, who would be eligible to have their services provincialised in terms of the provisions of Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act of 2017. On a scrutiny of the materials coming on records, in the present writ petition, this Court finds that Ayesha Siddique Begum was teaching the subject of Arabic while Zakir Husssain was teaching the subject of Social Science. Bharat Ch. Das, was teaching the subject of Science and Nasir Uddin (respondent no.7) was teaching the subject of English, while the petitioner was teaching the subject of Assamese. The respondent no.8 Md. Azahar Uddin Ansary was teaching the subject of Hindi. Accordingly, in the considered view of this Court in terms of the provisions of Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act of 2017, the services of Bharat Ch. Das was permissible to be so provincialised as a Science and Mathematics teacher. The services of Zakir Hussain (respondent no.9) was permissible to be so provincialised as Social Studies teacher and the services of the Nasir Uddin (respondent no.7) who was teaching the language subject was permissible to be provincialised against the language subject. Accordingly, the provincialisation of the services of Bharat Ch. Das, Zakir Hussain and Nasir Uddin is found to be in connosance with the provisions of the Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act of 2017 and accordingly, the provincialisation effected in respect of the said 03 (three) teachers including the respondent no.7 and 9, in the considered view of this Court would not mandate an interference. Referring back to the provisions of Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act of 2017, more particularly Page No.# 15/20 to the proviso, thereof, this Court finds that given the status of student enrolment, sanction of additional post in Upper Primary School shall be considered in accordance with the norms and standards stipulated in the Schedule under Sections 19 and 25 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. This Court finds considering enrollment status of the students in the said school the respondent authorities had sanctioned 02 (two) further posts for the school, in addition to the 03 (three) posts mandatorily required to be created in a provincialised Upper Primary School. The issue that would arise as to, who is to be considered for provincialisation against the additional 02 (two) posts so created. This Court finds that for the provincialisation of services against the said post there would be 03 claimants left i.e. Ayesha Siddique Begum, who was teaching the subject of Arabic, the petitioner who was teaching the subject of Assamese and Md. Azahar Uddin Ansary (respondent no.8), who was teaching the subject of Hindi. 13. Mr. Abedin, learned counsel for the respondent no.8 has submitted that the subject of Hindi and Arabic being compulsory subject, the services of the teacher teaching the said subject in a Venture Educational Institutions is mandatorily required to be so provincialised. In support of his such submission he has referred to guidelines laid down by the Government for grant of permission/recognition to a Upper Primary School and therein, the stipulation made of requiring one Hindi Teacher to be appointed. He has further referred to Page No.# 16/20 a communication dated 09.12.2019, issued by the Director of Elementary Education, wherein, it is projected that Hindi is a compulsory subject in Upper Primary School, along with the subject of Arabic. Accordingly, the submission of Mr. Abedin is that there is a necessity to have the services of a teacher teaching the said subjects of Hindi and Arabic in the Venture Educational Institutions, provincialised as Teacher/Tutor so as to ensure that the students studying, therein, are not deprived of the opportunities of learning the compulsory subjects. 14. On a close examination of the provisions of the Act of 2017, this Court finds that the legislature had not made any provision requiring the provincialisation of the services of Hindi Teacher/Tutor in Upper Primary School and Arabic teacher in a school which was earlier M.E. Madrassa. This Court finds that the provisions of the Act of 2017, more particularly the provisions of Section 3 (1) (xi) does not make any stipulation in this connection. The Schedule to the Act of 2017, with regard to the Upper Primary School is only to the extent of the fixed salary receivable by a Tutor who teaches the Hindi/Arabic subject or language subject. The alternative subjects having been granted, this Court would construe that once the services of a language teacher has been provincialisd in a Upper Primary School, there would be no further necessity for provincialiation of the services of a Hindi Teacher or Arabic teacher in the said school in satisfaction of the provisions of Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act Page No.# 17/20 of 2017. In the event, considering the status of enrolment of students, in the said school, additional posts are not mandated to be created, taking recourse to Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act of 2017, at best the subject of Hindi and Arabic can be treated to be language subject, insofar as, the Upper Primary School is so concerned and it would be the senior most Language Teacher amongst the teachers teaching in the said school whose services would be mandated to be so provincialised. A preferential treatment under the provisions of the Act of 2017, is not found to be have been extended to a teacher teaching the subject Hindi and/or Arabic in a Venture Educational Institution for provincialisation of their services. 15. Having drawn the said conclusion, this Court would now consider as to the manner in which the 02 (two) additional post created in the said school is now to be so filled up. This Court on a examination of the provisions of the Act of 2017, is of the considered view that the requirement of provision of Section 3 (xi) having been satisfied and services of 03 teachers teaching the subjects spelt out, therein, having been provincialised, the additional posts now sanctioned would be so required to be filled up by reckoning the seniority of the eligible teachers in the fray, by reckoning their respective dates of appointment in the school when it was in its venture stage. Applying the said principle to the facts of the present proceeding, this Court finds that Ayesha Siddique Begum who was appointed on 02.03.1995 was the senior most amongst the teachers Page No.# 18/20 followed by the petitioner, herein, who was so appointed on 28.08.2003. The respondent no.8 is found to have been appointed only on 29.05.2009 and accordingly, he is junior to Ayesha Siddique Begum and the petitioner, herein, Accordingly, the provincialisation of the services of the respondent no.8 which had been admitted by the parties to the proceedings to have been so effected against the additional post created, beyond the mandatory post created for satisfaction of the provision of Section 3 (1) (xi), would not be maintainable, inasmuch as, provincialisation of his services was so made ignoring the case of his senior i.e. the petitioner, herein. 16. Accordingly, in view of the above conclusions reached by this Court, this Court holds that the provincialisation of the services of the respondent no.8, would mandate an interference. Accordingly, the provincialisation of services of the respondent no.8 stands set aside. This Court holds that against the 02 (two) additional posts created in the school, it is the services of the Ayesha Siddique Begum and the petitioner, herein, that would now be mandated to be so provincialised. The services of Ayesha Siddique Begum, already having been provincialised, the same is not interfered with. 17. In view of the above discussion, this Court directs the petitioner to submits a representation before the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, along with the certified copy of this order, staking a claim for having her services provincialised. The Director of Elementary Education, Assam, on receipt Page No.# 19/20 of a certified copy of this order, shall place the case of the petitioner before the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee. The jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee, shall verify the service particulars of the petitioner strictly in accordance with observations and directions made, hereinabove, by this Court in present order. On completion of the exercise of verification, the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee, shall submit its recommendation in the matter and forward the same to the Director of Secondary Education, who shall, thereafter place the matter before the State Level Scrutiny Committee. On the State Level Scrutiny Committee completing the verification as mandated in the matter, shall submit its recommendation to the Government and the Government, thereafter, shall proceeded to pass appropriate orders basing on the recommendation now made by the constituted Committees. In the event, upon verification of the service particulars of the petitioner, her case is found to have been recommended by the constituted Committees, orders towards provincialisation of the services of the petitioner shall be so passed by the competent authority and the provincialisation of the services of the petitioner shall be effected w.e.f. 01.01.2021, by maintaining parity with the provincialisation of services effected in respect of other employees in the school in respect of other teachers. 18. The exercise now be required to be so conducted in terms of the directions passed, hereinabove, shall be initiated and concluded by the Director Page No.# 20/20 of Secondary Education, Assam, and the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education, within a period of 03 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with a representation from the petitioner. 19. At this stage, this Court would like to observe that the provincialisation of the services of the respondent no.8 as Tutor in the said school having been interfered with by this Court, the respondents shall not recover the salaries or fixed pay paid to the respondent no.8 as a Tutor, inasmuch as, he is found to have discharged his duties after his such provincialisation effected in his school as a Tutor in the said school 20. With the above observations and directions the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant