SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Gau) 111

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) 
KARDAK ETE, J.
Md. Baharul Islam, S/o. Late Sabur Uddin And Anr. – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam, Represented By Commissioner And Secy. And Ors. Respondent
WP(C) 5846 of 2021 
Decided On : 10-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the petitioner:Mr. K. Bhuyan, Advocate
For the respondent:Mr. P.K. Borah, SC Education, Elementary, Mr. K.U. Ahmed, Advocate

Provincialisation of teaching staff must adhere to seniority and proper qualification criteria as mandated by the Assam Provincialisation Act, 2017.

Headnote:(A) Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 - Notification dated 04.02.2021 - Provincialisation of services of tutors - The petitioners were appointed in 1988 and 1993, while respondents No. 6 and 7 were appointed later, but their cases were wrongly recommended without considering seniority, contrary to provisions cited. (Paras 3, 7, 21, 25)

(B) Seniority - The seniority of the teachers must be respected during the provincialisation process; ignoring seniority breaches legal provisions and principles of fair administrative action. (Paras 16, 24)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners challenged the provincialisation of services of junior respondents No. 6 and 7 despite their earlier appointments at N.C. Kachumara M.E. Madrassa, asserting wrongful disregard for seniority in the notification.

Findings of Court:
The notification was set aside for failing to comply with the Act's provisions regarding seniority and DISE code requirements, directing re-evaluation of positions within three months.

Issues: The main issues were concerning the legality of provincialisation in light of seniority and DISE code requirements for employees.

Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted that provincialisation must adhere to seniority principles and proper qualifications, thus quashing the notification for not following these principles accurately.

Result: Writ petition allowed; notification set aside.

JUDGMENT :

KARDAK ETE, J.

1. Heard Mr. K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.K. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department appearing for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. K.U. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 5, 6 and 7.

2. Challenge made in this petition is to the notification dated 04.02.2021 issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, whereby, the services of tutors against the Venture Lower Primary Schools and recognized Upper Primary Schools of 27 districts of Assam in accordance with the provisions of Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (The Assam Provincialisation Act, 2017, in short) have been provincialized, particularly provincialisation of services of the respondents No.6 and 7 namely, Sheikh Hanif Uddin and Sunar Uddin in respect of N.C. Kachumara M.E. Madrassa in the district of Barpeta.

3. The petitioners were appointed as Arabic and Hindi Teachers on 03.01.1988 and 28.03.1993 by the Managing Committee of N.C. Kachumara M.E. Madrassa in the district of Barpeta. The name of the petitioners and the respondent No.6 appeared in DISE Code of 2009-10 in the list of teaching staffs of the said M.E. Madrassa. However, the name of the respondents No.7 did not appear and does not have the DISE Code of 2009-10.

4. Pursuant to the Govt. Letter dated 30.01.2021 and in accordance with the provisions of the Assam Provincialisation Act, 2017, altogether 3309 tutors of Venture Lower Primary Schools and 6586 tutors of Recognized Upper Primary Schools of 27 districts of Assam was notified district wise with the name of the tutors whose services were eligible for provincialislation as per the Assam Provincialisation Act, 2017 by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam. In the notification, the name of the respondent No.6 appeared in SL No. 204 for provincialisation as tutors of N.C. Kachumara M.E. Madrassa and the name of respondent No.7 appeared at Serial No. 203 and accordingly, the services of the respondents No.6 and 7 have been provincialised as tutors of the said N.C. Kachumara M.E. Madrassa.

5. It is the contention of the petitioners that they having been appointed on 03.01.1988 and 21.03.1993 as language teachers in the N.C. Kachumara M.E. Madrassa and the respondent No.6 having been appointed in the year 2006 and the respondent No.7 although appears to have been appointed on 01.03.2010, are much junior to the petitioners, therefore, both the respondents No. 6 and 7 ought not to have been considered for provincialisation as the seniority of the petitioners has been totally ignored and no consideration was made by the respondent authorities in terms of the provision of the Assam Provincialisation Act, 2017 as for additional teachers/tutors, the DISE Code of the teachers are mandatory and, the seniority position cannot be ignored.

6. Mr. K. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the petitioners while referring to the list of details of the teaching staff, submits that altogether there are six teachers including the respondent No.6. From SL No. 1 to 3, have been provincialised in terms of the provisions of the Assam Provincialisation Act, 2017 as tutors for Science and Mathematics, Social studies and Language subjects. In terms of the proviso to Section 3 (1)(xi) of the Assam Provincialisation Act, 2017, for additional post, it is to be considered in accordance with the norms and standard stipulated under Section 19 and 25 of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. He submits that as a rightful and fair consideration, the petitioners case ought to have been considered and recommended for provincialisation for the additional post of tutors as the petitioners are much senior to the respondents No. 6 and 7, as the petitioners having been appointed in the year 1988 and 1993 and the respondents No. 6 and 7 being appointed in 2006 and 2010. Moreover, the name

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top