Back
2026 Supreme(Gau) 1146
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J.
MS. Jita Hazarika, W/o. Sri Upen Chandra Deka – Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Assam, Represented By The Commissioner And Secretary To The Govt. Of Assam, Education (Higher) Department And Ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/5713 of 2021
Decided On : 01-06-2026
Important Points
Subject
Service Law - Educational Appointments and Provincialisation
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Administrative Law - Fair Consideration - An employee is entitled to have their particulars submitted for consideration for provincialisation. Failure to forward such credentials in a timely manner, especially when others are recommended, constitutes a denial of a legal right and calls for remedial judicial intervention to ensure parity of opportunity. (Para 31)
(C) Judicial Review - Bias and Nepotism - Where allegations exist that management connections influenced the exclusion of a candidate from the selection process, an independent enquiry is mandated to investigate the integrity of the administrative action. (Paras 35, 36)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, serving as a faculty member since the mid-nineties, contended that her institution failed to forward her name for provincialisation under successive legislative acts. She alleged that her omission was deliberate, intended to favor other instructors who were closely connected to the management, thereby denying her seniority-based rights.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the petitioner suffered injustice due to the management's failure to forward her particulars. It determined that the petitioner must be afforded an equal opportunity for assessment for the subject post. An independent inquiry was directed to address the claims of nepotism and favoritism within the governing body of the institution.
Issues: Whether the management acted in a discriminatory manner by failing to sponsor the petitioner for provincialisation, and whether the court should compel the state authorities to reconsider the petitioner's eligibility in light of the alleged institutional bias.
Ratio Decidendi: The legal obligation of educational institutions to transparently process and sponsor eligible staff for service regulation is paramount. Where this process is compromised, the court will intervene to ensure a fair assessment by the competent authorities and order an investigation into procedural irregularities.
Result: Writ petition is disposed of with directions to consider the claim and conduct an administrative inquiry.
For the Petitioner: Mr. J. Abedin
For the Respondents: Mr. R.M. Deka and Mr. Mr. S. Ali, Mr. A. Buragohain, Mr. S. Das, Mr. S.S. Goswami.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual history regarding appointments and failed provincialisation processes under acts of 2011 and 2017. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. conflicting contentions regarding eligibility, seniority, and allegations of procedural bias in sponsorship. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 3. analysis of the duty to provide equal opportunity for provincialisation regardless of initial administrative omissions. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 4. court mandates for mandatory reconsideration and administrative review of the petitioner's eligibility. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 5. directives for independent enquiry into potential conflict of interest and service records manipulation. (Para 35 , 36 , 37) |
JUDGMENT :
RAJESH MAZUMDAR, J.
Heard Mr. J. Abedin, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.M. Deka, as well as Mr. S. Ali, learned Counsels for the respondent No. 7. Also heard Mr. A. Buragohain, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6 and Mr. S. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department, Assam, for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Also heard Mr. S.S. Goswami, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the fact that the College Authorities did not forward the name of the petitioner for consideration for provincialisation by the appropriate authorities, in due time, for which the petitioner had lost the opportunity to be considered for provincialisation on her turn under both Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 2011), and under the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-Organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 2017).
3. It is the case of the petitioner that she had completed her M.A. in Economics in the year 1991 from Dibrugarh University, securing second class with 54.63% marks. Accordingly, she was offered an appointment by the respondent No.4 in the Nandalal Borgohain City College, Nimaligaon, Dibrugarh and the petitioner joined her services on 31.12.1996 in the Economics Department as the second faculty member.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that when the petitioner was appointed, there was a standard practice or norm where the percentages above 54.5% in master’s degrees were allowed to be rounded off to 55%. The petitioner had again done her Master’s degree in Economics through distance mode, and in April 2011, she cleared the same by securing 55.08%.
5. In accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2011, the names of different staff members of the college had been forwarded to the appropriate authorities for being considered for provincialisation of services. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the statement annexed to the writ petition, showing the persons eligible for provincialisation of service as per the Act of 2011 (as amended in 2012) in respect of the college in issue, to show that, in the subject of Economics, only the name of one Assistant Professor had been forwarded as eligible and qualified for provincialisation of services.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that when the second phase of provincialisation was being taken up, this Court, by the orders passed in WP(C) No. 3190 of 2012 and other connected petitions, had declared the Act of 2011 to be constitutionally invalid. By an order dated 02.01.2017, passed in Review Petition No.167 of 2016, this Court had granted protection to those persons who had already been provincialised under the Act of 2011, until the new legislation, as proposed, was enacted.
7. By an order dated 31.05.2013, the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Higher Education Department had directed that the faculty members, who were appointed during the period from 06.09.1989 to 20.02.2003 and had scored 54.5% in their Post Gradua
