A senior language teacher has the primary claim for provincialisation under the Assam Education Act, and failure to provide justifiable reasons for excluding such a claim is arbitrary.

JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Mazumdar, J.

Heard Mr. B.K Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.N Sharma, learned Standing counsel, Department of School Education, Ms. D.D Barman, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 and Mr. Deba Sarmah, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6.

2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the fact that his case for provincialisation has been rejected by the order dated 07.11.2023 by the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education. The petitioner and the respondent No. 6 are teachers in Sonaram Sarma Balya Bidyapith School in Jorhat district. The petitioner was appointed on 01.01.1995 whereas the respondent number 6 came to be appointed on 06.05.2002. When the petitioner was superseded by respondent No. 6 during consideration for provincialisation, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 2203 of 2025.

2(a). Pertinent to mention here that the respondent No. 6 came to be provincialised by the order dated 5th of February 2021 under the provisions of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers & Re-organization of Educational Institutes) Act 2017.

3. The case of the petitioner is that as per the data capture format report signed by the respondent No. 6 himself, the petitioner was shown to have been appointed in the year 01.01.1995 and the respondent No. 6 had been allowed to join as the headmaster of the school on 06.05.2002. The case of the employees of the school having been taken up for consideration for provincialisation, the recommendation from the Director of Secondary Education was made in favour of respondent No. 6 to be provincialised as a tutor. This recommendation was given effect by the order dated 05.02.2021.

4. WP(C) No. 2203/2021 filed by the petitioner herein was disposed of on 31.08.2022 requiring the petitioner to file an appeal as provided for under section 14 of the Act of 2017. The petitioner having done so, the appeal was considered by the department of school education holding that since the District Scrutiny Committee, Jorhat did not recommend the name of the petitioner for provincialisation of service, therefore the petitioner could not be recommended for provincialisation under the Act of 2017. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner for provincialisation was rejected. The provincialisation of the respondent No. 6 as Tutor and the rejection of the case of the petitioner are the bone of contention in this writ petition.

5. It is the case of the petitioner herein that the petitioner being the senior most language teacher and the respond number six, having being appointed as headmaster and who was teaching English as a language teacher, the consideration of the respondent No. 6 is not in accordance with law and therefore the same needs interference of this Court.

6. It is the case of the respondent No.6 that having been appointed in the school, since at that point of time, the school did not have a qualified headmaster. Therefore, since he was the first qualified person to be appointed in the school, he had a better stake for consideration of provincialisation. The respondent No.6 does not dispute the seniority position of the petitioner above him on the basis of the date of joining in the school, but has relied upon the minutes of the District Scrutiny Committee, Jorhat to emphasize that since the DSC had resolved to forward the names of the serving Headmasters as social science teachers, his name has been recommended and thereafter his services were provinciallised.

7. The