The petitioner has a vested right for consideration of provincialization of services based on continuous service since 02.04.2010, despite erroneous submission by school authorities.

JUDGMENT :

N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.

1. Heard Ms. M. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. P. Das, learned standing counsel, Secondary Education Department, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5; and Mr. B. Deuri, learned Government Advocate, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 6. However, none has entered appearance on behalf of respondents No. 7 & 8 inspite of service of notice.

2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present writ petition, has prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to provincialize his services as an Assistant Teacher (Science) in Madhav Dev High School, Gohpur, w.e.f. 01.01.2013.

3. As projected in the writ petition; the petitioner was appointed as a Science teacher in the said school on 02.04.2010 by the Headmaster of the school. Thereafter, the Managing Committee of the said school adopted a resolution in its meeting held on 02.04.2010 to appoint the petitioner as the second teacher of Mathematics in the school, in question. The senior teacher teaching the subject of science in the said school, having resigned from his post, the petitioner, vide a resolution, dated 21.08.2012, was appointed as a Science teacher in his place. It is the contention of the petitioner that although an appointment was again effected in his case on 21.08.2012, he was continuing in his services in the said school as a Science teacher w.e.f. 02.04.2010.

On the enactment of the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialization of Services) Act, 2011; the cases of the serving eligible teachers of the said school were taken-up for provincialization of their services.

The case of the petitioner was also forwarded for consideration of his case. On the completion of the process of consideration as mandated under the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialization of Services) Act, 2011; the Director, Secondary Education Department, Assam, vide the order, dated 22.09.2014, proceeded to provincialize the services of the eligible teachers of the said school. However, the case of the petitioner was not so considered for provincialization of his services.

4. A perusal of the order, dated 22.09.2014, reveals that 1(one) post of an Assistant Teacher(B.Sc.) was kept vacant in the said school. It is also required to be noted that the teachers so provincialized in the said school vide the order, dated 22.09.2014, were so provincialized w.e.f. 01.01.2013.

5. It is contended by the petitioner in the writ petition that on an enquiry, he was given to understand that in the particulars as submitted by the school authorities for the purpose of provincialization of the services of the eligible teachers in the said school; the date of joining of the petitioner was reflected as 21.08.2012, and on the said ground, the authorities proceeded to not consider the case of the petitioner in-as-much as reckoning the date of appointment as reflected in his case; he was held to be not eligible for being considered for provincialization of his services.

6. Thereafter, the petitioner contends that on an approach being made, the particulars as submitted by the school authorities were reviewed. However, before setting aside of the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialization of Services) Act, 2011, by this Court on a challenge being presented to it; the consideration as mandated therein, in respect of the services of the petitioner, could not be taken to its logical conclusion and accordingly, his services could not be considered under the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialization of Services) Act, 2011.

7. As contended in the writ petition, upon the enactment of the Assam Education (Provincialization of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017; the jurisdictional District Level Scrutiny Committee(DLSC) had again considered the cases of the petitioner along with other eligible teachers of various schools and had made due recommendations