The entitlement for provincialisation under the relevant Acts of 2011 and 2017 is based on the service particulars and requirements specified in the Acts.

JUDGMENT

Achintya Malla Bujor Barua, J. - Heard Ms. A. Bujor Barua, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R.B. Bora, learned counsel for the BTC, Mr. N.J. Khataniar, learned counsel for the Elementary Education Department of the Govt. of Assam.

2. The petitioner No.1 Md. Mohit Ali was appointed as Science teacher of Naoshali Anusuchita M.E. School in the Mushalpur Block, Baksa district of Assam. The school concerned was provincialised under the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 (in short Act of 2011). But in doing so, the petitioner No.1 was left out from the process. In the circumstance, this petition is instituted for a direction that the service of the petitioner No.1 be also provincialised. The statement showing the particulars of 13 Science Teachers in the Upper Primary Schools under the Baksa district contains the name of the petitioner Md. Mohit Ali showing his date of appointment to be 09.08.2008. No materials have been produced before the Court that by operation of law the service of the petitioner No.1 stood provincialised under Section 4(1) of the Act of 2011.

3. In the circumstance, the entitlement of the petitioner would be for a consideration for provincialisation under the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers & Reorganization Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (in short Act of 2017) where Section 13(1) requires a consideration of the service particulars by the concerned District Level Scrutiny Committee. As the claim of the petitioner would be for a fresh consideration under the Act of 2017, we direct the Headmaster of Naoshali Anusuchita M.E. School to transmit the service particulars of the petitioner No.1 to the District Level Scrutiny Committee of Baksa district and upon the same being submitted, the District Level Scrutiny Committee shall give a consideration and pass a reasoned order whether the petitioner No.1 is to be recommended for provincialisation under the Act of 2017.

4. As regards the petitioner No.2 Sri Nitul Talukdar he was appointed as a Science Teacher in Dangarigaon M.E. School in the Jalah block of Baksa district.

5. In respect of petitioner No.2 the minutes of the meeting of the District Level Grievance Redressal Committee which was a committee under the Act of 2011 held on 21.05.2015 is annexed as Annexure12 page 54 of the writ petition. A reading of the minutes shows that the committee had recommended the petitioner No.2 for pronvincialisation under the Act of 2011 as amended in 2012. Section 4(1) of the Act of 2011 inter alia provides that all such teachers who satisfy the requirement of Section 3(1) of the said Act would be deemed to have been provincialised w.e.f. the date of coming into force of the Act concerned i.e. 01.01.2013. As the minutes of the meeting of the committee dated 21.05.2015 gives a clear indication that the petitioner No.2 had satisfied the requirement of Section 3(1) of the Act of 2011, therefore, it has to be understood that by operation of law under Section 4(1) of the Act of 2011, his service had been provincialised under the said Act.

6. It is only that the subsequent formal order had not been issued by the authorities and under the provision of the Act of 2011 it is a deem provincialisation by operation of law. In the circumstance, non issuance of formal order cannot lead to a situation that the service of the petitioner was not provincialised.

7. From such point of view, the respondents are directed to issue necessary formal orders for giving the benefit of pronvincialisation to the petitioner No.2 w.e.f. 01.01.2013, as entitled under Section 4(1) of the Act of 2011. Necessary formalities be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order.

8. Writ petition stands disposed of. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.