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 provisions of the Act of 2017.

Heard Mr. J. Abedin, learned counsel along with Ms. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.K. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Education (Elementary) Department appearing for the respondent Nos.1, 2, 4, 5, 6 & 7 and Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department and SSA, Assam appearing for the respondent Nos.3 and 8 respectively.

2. The petitioner has, by way of instituting the present proceedings, presented a challenge to an order dated 06.09.2022, issued by the Director, Elementary Education, Assam by which the claim of the petitioner for provincialisation of services in Rajyeswarpur M.E. Madrass was rejected on the ground that the name of the petitioner did not appear in the DISE data maintained for the school up to the year 2012-2013.

3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner was appointed by the Managing Committee of Rajyeswarpur M.E. Madrass on 30.10.2005. The petitioner joined his services on the same day. The said school, at the relevant point of time, was in its venture stage.

4. It is contended in the writ petition that with effect from the year 2006-2007, the DISE Code was allotted to the said school. However, for reasons not known, only the names of two teachers working in the said school came to be captured in the said DISE data. The petitioner contends to have approached the authorities on repeated occasions praying for inclusion of his name in the DISE data. However, the same was not considered. Ultimately, the request of the petitioner was accepted and his name was so included in the DISE data with effect from the year 2014-2015.

5. Upon the enactment of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (in short, the Act of 2017), the school of the petitioner having been found to satisfy the eligibility criterias for having the services of the teachers serving therein provincialised, the case of the petitioner and other serving teachers were considered by the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee. The said Committee, upon verification of the particulars of the petitioner and other serving teachers, proceeded to recommend the names of the petitioner and other two teachers, namely, Azir Uddin Laskar and Noor Ahmed Mazarbhuiya to be eligible for being considered for provincialisation of their services.

6. It is to be noted that the name of the petitioner herein was so recommended as a Science Teacher. Thereafter, the recommendation as made by the District Scrutiny Committee came to be placed before the State Level Scrutiny Committee. It is contended that the State Level Scrutiny Committee, upon making due scrutiny as required, proceeded to recommend the names of Azir Uddin Laskar and Nur Ahmed Mazarbhuiya, serving teachers of the said school for provincialisation of their services. However, the name of the petitioner was so dropped therein. In terms of the recommendation as made by the State Level Scrutiny Committee and after further processing as mandated in the matter, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam vide the order dated 05.02.2021 proceeded to provincialise the services of the said two teachers with effect from 01.01.2021.

7. The petitioner, being aggrieved by denial of the benefits of provincialisation of his services, approached this Court by way of instituting WP(C) No.2155/2021. This Court vide order an order dated 21.03.2022, upon considering the issues as arising in the matter, was pleased to dispose of the writ petition directing the Director of Elementary Education, Assam to call for the records of the Rajyeswarpur M.E. Madrassa, Hailakandi and upon examining the same to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the petitioner has any legal right to be provincialised as a Science Teacher of the school under the provisions of the Act of 2017.

8. It is in pursuance to the directions as passed by this Court vide order dated 21.03.2022, passed in WP(C) No.2155/2021, that the