A court may review its previous order when subsequent authoritative judicial pronouncements confirm that the adjudication failed to recognize vested rights to service provincialisation, establishing that such rights remain enforceable despite the expiration or repeal of the original governing statute.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

Heard Mr. M. Goswami, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. R. Sinha, learned counsel, appearing for the review petitioner. Also heard Mr. N. J. Khataniar and Ms. D. Mushahary, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department, appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner by way of instituting the present review petition has prayed for a review of the order dated 22.04.2024, passed by this Court in WP(C).No.7596/2022.

3. The facts in brief, leading to the constitution of the present Review petition, is noticed as under;

The School Managing Committee of Dubi High School, a Venture Educational Institution, in pursuance to the resolution adopted by it had proceeded to appoint the petitioner as a Music Teacher in the School on 25.01.1998. The petitioner in terms of the said appointment joined her service in the school on 02.02.1998, and her such appointment was provisionally approved by the Inspector of Schools.

The Government of Assam had enacted in the Assam Educational (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011, in order to provincialise the services of teachers working in various educational institutions in the State. The Dubi High School being found to be an eligible institutions for provincialisation of the services of the teachers working, therein, the names of the teachers working, therein, including the petitioner, herein, came to be forwarded for placing before the District Scrutiny Committee (DSE). The District Scrutiny Committee on verification of the service particulars of the teachers of the said school, including the petitioner, herein, recommended the name of the petitioner along with other teachers found eligible in the said school, for provincialisation of their services. Thereafter, upon further processing of the said proposal in terms of the provisions of Section 10 (4) of the Act of 2011, on the post requisite for provincialisation of the eligible teachers in the said school being sanctioned, and necessary notifications issued in this connection, the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, proceeded to provincialise the services of the teachers found eligible for provincialisation of their services. However, the name of the petitioner was not included in the list of teachers, whose services were provincialised in the School, wherein, the petitioner was working. It is to be noted that the Act of 2011, on being declared to be unconstitutional and invalid by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chandan Kumar Neog and Ors. Vs. State of Assam and Ors. [Judgment and Order dated 23.09.2006 in WP(C).No.3190/2011], the State respondents had enacted the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-Organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017. The case of the petitioner was considered under the provisions of the Act of 2017, and the District Scrutiny Committee, on verification of her service particulars had recommended her case for being placed before the State Level Scrutiny Committee. It is at this stage that the petitioner had instituted the connected writ petition being WP(C).No.7596/2022, praying for consideration of her case under the provincialisation of her service w.e.f. 01.01.2013, in terms of the provisions of the Act of 2011. This Court noticing that after the Act of 2011, on being declared ultra vires by this Court, the case of the petitioner was considered under the provisions of the Act of 2017, the said process however, being found to have not been taken to its logical conclusion, pro