Judgment & Order (Oral):

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 records now reveal that the name of the respondent No.6 did not appear in the DISE Data for the year 2009-10, the provincialisation order dated 05.02.2021 had apparently been issued on the basis of a recommendation which did not take into consideration the aforesaid records.

9. In such view of the matter, this Court of the opinion that the recommendation by the DSC and the further action taken on the same by the State level committee and the other respondents to provincialize services of the respondent No.6, when his name did not appear in the DISE Data of 2009-10, requires an interference by this Court. Accordingly, the provincialisation of the respondent No.6, given effect to by the order dated 5th of February, 2011, as also the recommendations of the District Scrutiny Committee and the other Authorities forwarding the name of the respondent No.6 for provincialisation are interfered with.

10. This is not to say that respondent No.6 would lose all his rights to be considered for provincialisation, in case he can bring on record proof before the concerned authority to establish the fact that though his name should have been included in the DISE Data for 2009-10, it was dropped out and therefore his case would require consideration by provincialisation in accordance with law. However, till today, no such stand has been taken by the respondent No.6

11. Mr. A.K. Purkayastha has prayed that the respondent No.6 be given the liberty to agitate his claim with regard to the dropping of his name in the 2009-10 DISE Data before the appropriate forum. Liberty granted.

12. Coming back to the case of the petitioner, it is apparent that his name had been included in the DISE Data for the year 2009-10 and no reason has been assigned by the respondent authorities in the affidavit-in-opposition other than the alleged “absence of the name of the petitioner in the DISE Data in year 2009-10” to have denied him a consideration for provincialisation. Now, that it has come on record that the name of the petitioner was available in the DISE Data 2009-10, the Director of Elementary Education shall require the case of the petitioner to be routed through the DSC along with all appropriate and relevant documents for a re-consideration of the case of the petitioner for provincialisation under the Act of 2017 in accordance with law.

13. The petitioner shall appear before the office of the Director of Elementary Education on or before 13th of March, 2026 with all the relevant documents available with him.

14. The Director of Elementary Education shall cause an inspection of the documents submitted by petitioner, have the same accepted and thereafter proceed to have the matter of the petitioner reconsidered from the level of the District Scrutiny Committee onwards for consideration of provincialisation.

15. If the petitioner is found to be fit for provincialisation under the 2017 Act, the respondent authorities, acting in co-operation, shall ensure that the requisite orders are passed, granting the petitioner the benefits of provincialisation to be made available to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of documents from the petitioner. Needless to say, in case the petitioner is found to be eligible for provincialisation under 2017 Act, the benefit, as has been given to other people who have been provincialised under the said Act, shall be made available to the petitioner.

16. On the setting aside of the provincialisation order with regard to the respondent No.6, Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel has submitted that since the consideration of provincialisation of the petitioner may take some time and the meantime, his client would also be out of service, the school may face difficulty. It is left open to the State authorities to act in a manner in which educational atmosphere of the school is maintained.

17. Writ petition disposed of. No Cost.