The mandatory nature of Section 10(4) of the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialization of Services) Act, 2011 and the entitlement of serving teachers to have their cases considered under the Assam Education (Provincialization of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017.

Heard Mrs. R. Devi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Standing counsel for the Secondary Education Department appearing on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and Mr. P. Nayak, learned Standing counsel for the Financial Department appearing for the Respondent No.4.

2. The present writ petition has been instituted by the Headmaster-cum-Secretary of Dakhin Dhakuakhana High School on behalf of the eligible serving teachers of the said school praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities for provincialization of their respective services w.e.f. 01.01.2013 in terms of the provisions of Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialization of Services) Act, 2011 (for short “Act of 2011”).

3. The Petitioners in the writ petition has projected that the Dakhin Dhakuakhana High School was found to have satisfied the eligibility criteria as mandated under the said Act of 2011 for having the services of the serving teachers therein provincialzed, but the said school was let out from the purview of such consideration on account of interim directions passed by this Court in WP(C) No.6283/2012, filed by two serving teachers of the said school claiming seniority. This Court vide an order dated 29.07.2013 passed in Misc. Case No.1857/2013 modified the interim directions as operating by permitting the consideration of the cases of the serving teachers by the District Scrutiny Committee. However, it was directed that two posts of Assistant Teachers be not filled up in the meantime. Thereafter, the said writ petition was taken up for final consideration and vide an order dated 31.10.2013 noticing that disputed questions of fact are involved in the matter, this Court proceeded to dispose of the said writ petition by directing the Inspector of Schools, Lakhimpur to place the matter before the District Scrutiny Committee towards resolution of the dispute raised in the writ petition.

4. It is contended by the writ petitioner that in terms of the directions passed by this Court, the cases of the eligible serving teachers in the said school were placed before the District Scrutiny Committee and the recommendations as made by the District Scrutiny Committee came to be forwarded by the jurisdictional Inspector of Schools vide a communication dated 02.01.2014 to the Director of Secondary Education, Assam for further necessary action in the matter.

5. It has been highlighted in the writ petition that upon due scrutiny being made by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, the said authority vide communication dated 29.01.2016 proceeded to forward the case of the serving teachers of the said school to the Government in the Secondary Education Department for creation and sanction of the posts for the purpose of provincialization of the services of the teachers so found eligible in the said school. However, as no action having been taken in pursuance to the said communication dated 29.01.2016, the present proceedings have been initiated.

6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner Mrs. R. Devi submitted that the case of the eligible serving teachers having been recommended by the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee and such recommendation upon scrutiny by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam having been forwarded to the Government vide the communication dated 29.01.2016, the services of the petitioners have to be deemed to have been provincialized and accordingly it was prayed that in view of the processing as made in the case of the petitioners, this Court is called upon to direct the respondent authorities to issue appropriate orders towards provincializing the services of the petitioners under the provisions of the Act of 2011 w.e.f. 01.01.2013 with all consequential benefits.

7. Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Standing counsel for the Secondary Education Department by drawing the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 10(4) of the said Act of 2011 has submitted that althou