Provincialization must be based on accurate data, as revealed by the DISE data discrepancies affecting eligibility under the education act.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J.

1.Heard Mr. Z. Hammad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G. Pegu, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3 & 4/Elementary Education Department, Mr. A K Purukayastha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6 and Mr. E. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.

2. The thrust of the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that although the name of the respondent No. 6 did not appear in any of the DISE Data of the year 2009-2010 or prior thereto, his services have been provincialized by the order dated 05.02.2021, thereby depriving the petitioner due consideration for provincialisation of his service.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the provisions of Section 2(z)(b) of the Assam Education (Provincialization of Services of Teachers and Re-Organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 and has made submission to impress that there were manipulations in the records placed before the District Level Scrutiny Committee and the State Level Scrutiny Committee, which led to the petitioner's name being dropped and the private respondent No. 6 name being forwarded for provincialization.

4. We have gone through the affidavits filed in the matter.

5. The respondent No. 5, who is the Head Mistress of the Pub-Amlokhi AS Ahmedia LP School, had stated in her affidavit, at paragraph-5;

“The District Scrutiny Committee, Nagaon forwarded and recommended the names of two teaching staffs including the deponent Head Mistress (B.A) and respondent No.6 Abdul Aziz (whose name was included in the DISE Code for the year 2009-10) of the said school for provincialisation.”

However, Mr. E. Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5, has submitted that due to an inadvertent typographical error, the words "not" requiring to have appeared after the word "was" and before the word-”included” was dropped and the sentence should have actually read as; “The District Scrutiny Committee, Nagaon forwarded and recommended the names of two teaching staffs including the deponent Head Mistress (B.A) and respondent No.6 Abdul Aziz (whose name was not included in the DISE Code for the year 2009-10) of the said school for provincialisation”. He submits that the fact remains that the name of the respondent No. 6 had not appeared in the DISE Data of the year 2009 and 2010.

6. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Elementary Education Department, has requisitioned the records containing details of the DISE DATA of the School for 2009-2010.

7.Although a specific stand had been taken, in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2, that the name of the petitioner did not appear in the DISE Data upto 2011-2012, it is also seen that it does not contain any statement asserting that the District Level Scrutiny Committee, the State Level Scrutiny Committee or the Office of the Director itself or the Office of the Government, had at any point of time, found that the name of the respondent No. 6 appeared in any of the DISE Data of the year 2009-2010 or prior thereto.

8. The records produced by learned Standing counsel for the Department of School Education have been perused and it is now clear that the name of the petitioner had appeared in the DISE Data of the year 2009-10, whereas the name of the respondent No.6 did not appear in the DISE Data of 2009-10, though it appeared in all the DISE Data thereafter. Ironically the name of the petitioner started missing from the DISE Data of the year 2009-10. The requirements of the Provincialisation Act of 2017 is thepresence of the name of the proposed persons in the DISE Data of the year 2009-10. Since