IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that eligibility for provincialization of teachers' services must be based on verified service records and seniority, as per the provisions of the relevant Act.

JUDGMENT :

(N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.) :

Heard Mr. R. Ali, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. M. T. Chistie, learned standing counsel, Elementary Education Department, appearing on behalf of State respondents No. 1, 2 & 4; Ms. Deepanjalee Das Barman, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3; and Mr. P. Bharadwaj, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5.

2. The challenge made in the present proceeding is to an order, dated 19.02.2022, passed by the Director, Elementary Education Department, Assam, rejecting the case of the petitioner, herein, for provincialization of his service.

3. The petitioner, herein, contends that he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 24.04.2009 by the Managing Committee of Salbari M.E. Madrassa, Goalpara. The petitioner, accordingly, joined on the said date and contends to be teaching the language subject in the said school. Upon enactment of the Assam Education(Provincialization of Services of Teachers and Reorganization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017; the Headmaster of the said school, submitted the particulars of the serving teachers therein, including that of the petitioner and he was shown to have been teaching the subjects of Social Science, Arts, Education, Assamese, English and Hindi, in the school, in question.

4. The cases of the serving teachers in the said school were considered by the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee and on verification of their service particulars, it is contended that the names of the teachers found eligible for provincialization of their services, was forwarded to the Director, Elementary Education Department, Assam, by the jurisdictional District Elementary Education Officer(DEEO). It is also contended that in the recommendations so made; the name of the petitioner, herein, was found to be eligible, along with the respondent No. 5, herein, for provincialization of their services. Thereafter, it is contended that the proposal as submitted by the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee was remanded back by the Government in the Department of Education, Assam, requiring the said Committee to re-submit the same recommending the names of 3(three) teachers, one, each against the posts of Science, Language and Social Studies, respectively. It is contended that the jurisdictional District Scrutiny Committee, after a further verification, re-submitted the proposal through the jurisdictional District Elementary Education Officer(DEEO) on 28.06.2018, and therein, the name of one Jomir Uddin Ahmed was shown against the Science subject and the name of Abdur Rahim who was functioning as the Headmaster of the said school, was shown against the Social Studies subject.

It is contended that the jurisdictional District Elementary Education Officer(DEEO), on being so directed, had submitted a report in the matter, on a verification made and therein, while the names of Jomir Uddin Ahmed as a Science teacher and Abdur Rahim as a language teacher, was so reflected; one further post which was available in the said school, was shown as vacant. Accordingly, it is the contention of the petitioner that basing on such recommendations made; the services of the teachers teaching the subjects of Science and Social Studies were provincialized as Tutors.

5. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the denial of the benefits of provincialization to him, had approached this Court by way of instituting a writ petition being WP(c)1857/2021. This Court, vide order, dated 13.07.2021, required the Director, Elementary Education Department, Assam, to pass a reasoned order after hearing the petitioner and verifying the records of the said school. The petitioner, herein, contends that in the said writ petition; the Headmaster of the school, in question, who was arrayed as respondent No. 5, had, on affidavit, stated before this Court, that the petitioner who was working as a teacher against the langu