Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

Heard Ms. N.S. Thakuria, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Mr. J. Roy, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.4.

2. Case was heard on 03.08.2016 and today is fixed for delivery of judgment.

3. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks quashing of provincialisation order dated 05.03.2013 in respect of Titkuchi High School in the district of Kamrup (Rural) and further seeks a direction to the respondents to provincialise his service.

4. Case of the petitioner is that he joined as Assistant Teacher in the Titkuchi High School (School) on 01.01.1991 following his appointment by the Managing Committee of the School on the said date. At that stage, the School was a venture educational institution. It is also stated that petitioner's father had donated land for establishment of the School.

5. According to the petitioner, though he had joined the School on 01.01.1991, Managing Committee of the School issued appointment letters to the teaching and non-teaching staff of the School including the petitioner on 17.04.1994. At the time of appointment, petitioner was Higher Secondary pass. But subsequently in the year 2014, he obtained graduation from Gauhati University.

6. Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 (Provincialisation Act) was enacted to provincialise the services of the employees of venture educational institutions in the State of Assam and to restrict further establishment of such educational institutions in the State. The effect of provincialisation as provided under Section 4 of the Provincialisation Act is that services of the employees of the eligible venture educational institutions brought under the purview of provincialisation would be deemed to be employees of the State Government with effect from the date of coming into force of the Provincialisation Act. Thus, the employees of such institutions would acquire the status of State Government employees.

7. In terms of the Provincialisation Act, the School was also taken up for consideration for provincialisation. In this connection, the School authorities had submitted list of teaching and non-teaching staff of the School to the Inspector of Schools, Kamrup District Circle. Ultimately, Director of Secondary Education, Assam, provincialised the School vide Annexure-6 order dated 05.03.2013. While service of respondent No.5 was provincialised as Assistant Headmaster, that of respondent No.6 was provincialised as Assistant Teacher (Arts). In the process, service of the petitioner was not provincialised. Petitioner contends that both respondent Nos.5 and 6 had joined the School after him which is particularly true in the case of respondent No.6, respondent No.6 having joined the School on 07.01.2002. The Provincialisation Act provides for provincialisation of the services of the employees on the basis of 'seniority' in the respective category. Admittedly, petitioner is senior to respondent Nos.5 and 6. Therefore, non-provincialisation of the service of the petitioner is not justified. In this connection, petitioner submitted several representations before the higher authorities for provincialisation of his service but without any success.

8. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed seeking the reliefs as indicated above.

9. This Court by order dated 03.06.2013 had issued notice and passed an interim order to the effect that provincialisation benefits for one post of Assistant Teacher in the School should not be granted.

10. By a subsequent order dated 05.03.2014, this Court formulated the following issue for consideration:-

"Whether date of entry into the service while the School was a venture School or the date of acquiring the minimum qualification, i.e., graduation is relevant for the purpose of provincialisati