Issues raised in both the writ petitions are inter-related and, accordingly, the two writ petitions were heard together on 27.11.2014. Today is fixed for delivery of order.

Order is dictated in the open Court.

Heard Mr. MR Khandakar, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 3126/2013 and Mr. AM Buzarbaruah, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No. 4201/2013. Also heard Mr. AR Sikdar, learned counsel appearing for the school authority i.e., respondent Nos. 6 & 7 in WP(C) No. 3126/2013 and respondent Nos. 7 & 8 in WP(C) No.4201/2013. Mr. RM Deka, learned Standing Counsel, Education (Ele.) Department has also been heard.

In WP(C) No. 3126/2013, filed by Sri Dipak Kr. Das, petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 09.05.2013, passed by the District Scrutiny Committee, Dhubri, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for inclusion of his name as Assistant Teacher (Hindi) in the list of teachers of Girija Boro ME School, District Dhubri for the purpose of provincialisation. By the said order, the District Scrutiny Committee also rejected the competing claim of respondent No. 9, Smti. Panika Devi for provincialisation of her service as Assistant Teacher (Hindi) in the said School. Respondent No. 9 (Smti. Panika Devi), has filed the other writ petition i.e., WP(C) No. 4201/2013 assailing the correctness of the aforesaid order dated 09.05.2013 (for convenience Sri Dipak Kr. Das will be referred to as the petitioner and Smti. Panika Devi will be referred to as respondent No. 9 in the present order).

According to the petitioner, he is the founder teacher of Girija Boro ME School (School hereafter), having been appointed on 12.03.1983. His appointment was later on approved by the departmental authorities. School received financial assistance for the years 2010-2011 and 2011-12. Managing Committee of the School adopted a resolution on 07.01.2010 suspending the petitioner from his service for prolonged absence and allowing respondent No. 9 to serve on honourary basis. It is stated that there are lot of over writings in the said resolution, which suggest that it was a manipulated one to deprive the petitioner from getting his share of the financial assistance and also to exclude him from the benefit of provincialisation. According to the petitioner, he continued in the service of the School, which is reflected in the District Information System for Education (DISE) Code for various years, indicating that the petitioner was rendering service in the School. On 20.01.2011, the Managing Committee of the School adopted another resolution appointing respondent No. 9 as Assistant Teacher (Hindi) of the School in place of petitioner. Appointment of petitioner was cancelled. Petitioner has alleged that this resolution is also ante-dated and has been manipulated to achieve the same objective. In the meanwhile, the School is being considered for provincialisation under the provisions of the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011. At that stage, petitioner moved this Court by filing WP(C) No.337/2013, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 31.01.2013 with a direction to the District Scrutiny Committee to consider the claim of the petitioner as well as of respondent No. 9 and thereafter to take an appropriate decision. Following the said order of this Court, the impugned order dated 09.05.2013 has been passed.

Mr. Khandakar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the DISE Code of the School clearly shows that the petitioner was in service of the School all throughout, including the year 2010-2011. This only goes to show that the two resolutions dated 07.01.2010 and 20.01.2011 are not genuine and have been manufactured to deprive the petitioner from the benefits of financial assistance and provincialisation. He also refers to the overwriting in the two resolutions in support of his above submission.

On the other hand, Mr. Buzarbaruah, l