Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Smti. Indira Thakuria, Daughter of Late Ishan Thakuria – Appellant
Versus
The State of Assam - Respondent
WP(C) No.310 of 2024
Decided on : 22-01-2024
Provincialisation - Education - Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 - Section 2(x), 2(y), 2(za), 2(zb), 13(11)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Subject Teachers in a Higher Secondary School, sought provincialisation of their services under the 2017 Act. The Director of Secondary Education rejected their claim based on their names not being in the UDISE Data, despite a previous court order stating that such inclusion was not required for teachers in a Venture Higher Secondary School.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Director's rejection was in violation of the previous court order and the 2017 Act, and set aside the speaking order dated 09.05.2023. The matter was remanded back to the Director to place the recommendations before the State Level Scrutiny Committee and consider the case without the requirement of UDISE Data. The State Level Scrutiny Committee was directed to invoke powers under Section 13(11) for verification if needed.
Issues: Rejection of provincialisation based on UDISE Data, compliance with the 2017 Act, and the need for physical verification under Section 13(11).
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the 2017 Act does not mandate teachers in a Venture Higher Secondary School to have their names in the UDISE Data. The Director's rejection based on this ground was deemed a violation of the Act and the court's previous order.
Final Decision: The speaking order dated 09.05.2023 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Director for reconsideration without the requirement of UDISE Data. The State Level Scrutiny Committee was directed to invoke powers under Section 13(11) if needed. The Director was given three months to complete the process.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. R.M. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned standing counsel, Education (Secondary) Department, representing the respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3.
2. In view of the nature of order to be passed in the present proceeding, notice upon the respondent No.4 is not deemed necessary.
3. The petitioners, by way of the present writ proceeding, have assailed the speaking order dated 09.05.2023 passed by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, by which the case of the petitioners for provincialisation of their services was rejected on the ground that the names of the petitioners did not figure in the UDISE.
4. The petitioners are all Subject Teachers in Uparhali Higher Secondary School and were appointed in the said School when the School was in its venture stage. Thereafter, in terms of the provisions of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (for short, “2017 Act”), cases of the petitioners and other teachers of the said School were taken up for consideration for provincialisation of their services. Accordingly, the case of the petitioners and other eligible teachers of the said School came to be placed before the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee. The District Scrutiny Committee, on consideration of the cases of the petitioners and others, recommended the names of the petitioners along with that of other eligible teachers of the said School for provincialisation of their services.
5. The said process was taken up further and on the said recommendation being considered by the State Level Scrutiny Committee, the services of one Smti. Minu Das Talukdar, PGT (Assamese) of the said School, came to be provincialised vide an order dated 30.11.2021. The cases of the petitioners not being considered for provincialisation of their services, they had approached this Court by way of instituting WP(C) No.1275/2022.
6. This Court, on consideration of the matter, vide order dated 25.02.2022, directed the Director of Secondary Education, Assam to consider the recommendation of the District Scrutiny Committee made in favour of the petitioners and to pass appropriate orders with regard to provincialisation of their services if there is no legal impediment in the matter. It was also provided in the said order that if there is any legal impediment with regard to provincialisation of the services of the petitioners, a reasoned order be passed and the same be communicated to the petitioners. Accordingly, vide a speaking order dated 5.05.2022, the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, on consideration of the matter, rejected the claim of the petitioners by holding that the names of the petitioners did not figure in the UDISE Data and accordingly, the State Level Scrutiny Committee could not consider the case of the petitioners for provincialisation of their services.
7. The petitioners thereafter assailed the said speaking order dated 05.05.2022 before this Court by way of instituting WP(C) No.4594/2022. This Court, vide order dated 18.07.2022, on considering the matter and drawing a conclusion that the petitioners, who were so serving in Senior Secondary School, are not required to be included in the UDISE Data, disposed of the said writ petition remanding back the matter to the Director of Secondary Education, Assam to reconsider the claim of the petitioners for provincialisation of their services in terms of the provisions of 2017 Act. The speaking order dated 05.05.2022 was came to be interfered with by this Court.
8. The said order dated 18.07.2022 passed by this Court in WP(C) No.4594/2022 came to be placed before the Director of Secondary Education, Assam and thereafter the said authority, vide speaking order dated 09.05.2023, reconsidered the case of the petitioners and again rejected their case on the ground that since the names of the petitioners not figured in the UDISE Data, the State Level Scrutiny Committ
AI
The 2017 Act does not require teachers in a Venture Higher Secondary School to have their names in the UDISE Data, and the Director's rejection based on this ground was in violation of the Act and th....
The absence of names in DISE Data does not justify exclusion from provincialisation under the Assam Education Act; teachers in Venture Junior Colleges are not required to be listed in DISE Code.
The provisions of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 do not mandate teachers working in certain schools to have ....
The absence of a teacher's name in the DISE data should not be the sole determinant of eligibility for provincialisation, and independent evaluation of service particulars is necessary under the prov....
Point of Law : Issues involved in instant writ petition can be decided by a fact finding authority i.e. Educational Tribunal constituted under Section 19(2) of Act.
Point of Law : Section 19 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, no school shall be established, or recognized, under Section 18 unless it fulfils the norms and standard....
The court established that administrative negligence in record-keeping cannot justify the denial of provincialisation of service, ensuring equal treatment under the law.
Administrative decisions regarding the provincialization of educational institutions must be based on a comprehensive assessment of all available evidence, including historical records, and must be c....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
