JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 being the authorities under the Elementary Education Department of the Govt. of Assam and Ms. D.D. Barman, learned counsel appearing for the Deputy Commissioner, Karimganj.

2. The petitioner is a teacher in the Kalartook Mothshojibi VLP School, Karimganj having been appointed on 25.4.2007., One of the teachers, namely, Ahmed Banaiamia had been provincialised under the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 (‘Act of 2011’)-As the services of the petitioner was not provincialised along with other teachers, this petition is instituted.

3. Mr. A. Phukan, learned counsel for the Elementary Education Department raises a preliminary objection that the daim of the petitioner for provincialisation is not maintainable inasmuch as, the other teacher was provincialised under the Ad of 2011 and as the said Ad had in the meantime been declared to be ultra vires by the judgment dated 23.9.2016 in WP(C) No. 3190/2012, therefore, no further provincialisation is maintainable. We appreciate the contention raised by Mr. A. Phukan, learned counsel. But at the same time, we also take note of two aspects of the matter. Firstly by another order dated 2.1.2017 in Review Petition No. 167/2016, the Division Bench had clarified that all such procedures that were undertaken under the Act of 2011 would be saved and the declaration of the Act of 2011 to be ultra vires would not adversely affect such procedures already undertaken. The second aspect of the matter is that under section 4(1) of the Act of 2011 it is a deemed provincialisation provided that the person concerned satisfies the requirement of section 3 of the Act of 2011. In other words, we have to understand that once the authorities had undertaken the exercise to determine that the teacher concerned satisfies the requirement of section 3, the provincialisation takes the place by operation of law and any other subsequent order that may be issued would be for the purpose of completing the formality and would not be a determination whether the person is to be provincialised or not.

4. In the instant case, we take note of that the Annexure-4, p.20 to the writ petition is a document prepared by the respondent-authorities in the Elementary Education Department providing for the service particulars of the teacher who are to be provincialised. The Annexure-4, p.-20 shows that an exercise was undertaken to verify the service particulars of the teacher who are enlisted therein as to whether they satisfy the requirement of section 3 of the Act of 2011. As the exercise to determine as to whether the petitioner satisfies the requirement of section 3 had already been undertaken as indicated in Annexure-4, p.-20 document, it has to be understood that the authorities are satisfied that the petitioner satisfies the requirement of section 3 of the Act of 2011. As the service particulars of the petitioner satisfies the requirement of section 3 of the Act of 2011, we have to accept that the service of the petitioner already stood provincialised as provided in section 4(1) of the Act of 2011.

5. We also take note of that the Annexure-4, p.-20, contains the name of two teachers of Kalartook Mothshojibi VLP School, Karimganj and out of the two teachers, one teacher Ahmed Banaiamia had been provincialised, whereas, the petitioner had been left out from being issued a formal order giving him the benefit.

6. In the circumstance, we direct the Director of Elementary Education, Assam to pass an appropriate order taking note of the above observations and conclusions arrived at. As there is already a determination that the petitioner had fulfilled the requirement of section 3 of the Act of 2011, appropriate orders giving the benefit of provincialisation be passed in favour of the petitioner, or otherwise if the petitioner for any reason does not