JUDGMENT :

(Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J.)

Heard Shri M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri U. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the Secondary Education Department; Ms. D. Das Barman, learned State Counsel; Shri D. K. Roy, learned Standing Counsel, Assam Higher Secondary Education Council; and Shri B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department.

2. The facts projected in the writ petition is that the Rangauti Girls HS School (hereinafter the School) was established in the campus of the existing Rangauti Girls High School in the district of Hailakandi. The said establishment has been said to have been done as per a resolution for up-gradation of the School and accordingly permission of the same was sought for in the year 2000. As such permission was not granted, the petitioner School had approached this Court wherein an order was passed on 15.02.2000 in WP(C) No.4206/1999. Pursuant there to, the Higher Secondary Education Council had issued letters whereby Feasibility Report as well as recommendation was made. The permission was ultimately granted on 20.01.2006. However, the provincialisation of the School was denied on the ground that there was a delay of 19 days in granting the permission. The impugned order dated 04.04.2014 was passed whereby the rejection was made on the aforesaid ground of delay of 19 days.

3. Shri Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners were not responsible for the delay of 19 days in giving the permission. He submits that while the cut-off date was 01.01.2006, the permission to the petitioners School was given on 20.01.2006 i.e. after a period of 19 days. It is submitted that the process was initiated much prior to 01.01.2006 and therefore the rejection is not sustainable in law as the petitioners cannot be held liable for the delay of 19 days.

4. It is further submitted that under similar circumstances, certain other Schools had approached this Court and had filed WP(C) No. 5975/2013 (Dakhin Number Para High School v. The State of Assam & 4 Ors.) in which an order was passed on 24.02.2014 directing granting of permission with retrospective effect. The learned counsel for the petitioners prays for similar order.

5. Shri Khan, learned counsel has also relied upon another order dated 04.03.2016 passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 1448/2016 wherein this Court had directed for consideration of the case of the petitioners. It is further submitted that pursuant to such direction, a Scrutiny Committee had examined the matter and had recommended the same to be taken up by the State Level Scrutiny Committee.

6. Reliance has also been made on an order of this Court dated 08.12.2014 passed in WP(C) No. 6377/2014 wherein a direction was given for consideration of the case of the petitioners for changing the date of its recognition w.e.f. 12.01.2006 to 01.01.2006.

7. Per contra, Shri U. Sarma, learned counsel for the Department has submitted that a policy decision was arrived at with respect to giving the benefit of provincialisation in which a cut-off date of 01.01.2006 was laid down. The impugned order dated 04.04.2014 makes it clear that Venture Educational Institutions which have been accorded permission on or after 01.01.2006 shall not be provincialised and no such educational institutions shall be allowed to remain functional. He accordingly submits that the writ petition may be dismissed.

8. The rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered and the materials placed before this Court have been carefully examined.

9. The grievance of the petitioners