The court mandated reconsideration of the petitioner's claim for provincialisation as a Social Science Teacher, emphasizing adherence to statutory requirements under the Act.

JUDGMENT :

Kardak Ete, J.

Heard Mr. A.K. Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Phukan, learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department appearing for respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5, Ms. D.D. Barman, learned State Counsel for the respondent No.3, Mr. MAI Hussain, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7 as well as Mr. F.U. Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the respondent No.8. None appears for the respondent No.6, despite service of notice.

2. The challenge made in this writ petition is to the order dated 16.06.2023, passed by the Secretary to the Govt. of Assam, Department of School Education, whereby the claim of the petitioner for provincialisation of his service as Social Science Teacher has been rejected on the ground that the District Scrutiny Committee, Nagaon has not recommended the name of the petitioner for provincialisation of his service.

3. The case of the petitioner, shorn of unnecessary details, is that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in 1210 No. Pachim Moiradhaj M.E. Madrassa on 05.01.2006. The petitioner claims to be a Social Science Teacher, whereas the respondent Nos.6, 7 & 8 are Language Teachers. Out of four teachers in respect of 1210 No. Pachim Moiradhaj M.E. Madrassa, it is contended that services of the respondent Nos.6, 7 & 8, who are Language Teachers have been provincialised along with one Mahananda Borah for Science & Mathematics subject and the case of the petitioner, although a Social Science Teacher, has been ignored.

4. It is contended that as per Section 3(1)(xi) of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (for short ‘the Act of 2017’), provides that in case of Venture Upper Primary School, there shall be minimum 3 (three) teachers or tutors, at least 1 (one) teacher each for (a) Science and Mathematics, (b) Social Studies and, (c) Languages. It is contended that non- provincialization of the services of the petitioner who is a Social Science Teacher, while provincializing the services of the respondent Nos.6, 7 & 8, is in violation of the aforesaid provision of the Act of 2017.

5. Aggrieved by such action of the respondent authorities i.e. non-provincialization of the services of the petitioner, he approached this Court by filing a writ petition being WP(C) No.1490/2021. This Court on 13.05.2022, disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the respondent authorities, while not interfering with the provincialisation of services of the respondent Nos.6, 7 & 8 and taking into account all the allegations and counter-allegations, particularly, taking into account that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to prove his case that he is a Social Science Teacher and this Court would not be in a position to deal with such factual determination that too in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution, directed the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 14 of the Act of 2017, before the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Elementary Education Department.

6. This Court had recorded the submissions of learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department that as per the instruction, the respondent Nos.6, 7 & 8, whose services have been provincialised are all Language Teachers. This Court has also made an observation that on the perusal of the materials on record, except the certificate issued by the Headmaster in the year 2017, there is no any document on record to show that the petitioner is a Social Science Teacher. The document also shows that the petitioner has been teaching language subject.

7. On such appeal having been filed by the petitioner pursuant to the order of this Court, the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education has disposed of the same and rejected the appeal of the petitioner, on the ground that the District Scrutiny Committee has not recommended the name of the petitioner for provincialization o