WA/261/2026 of THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. Vs ZINNATUN NEHAR AND 2 ORS. on 9 September 2026

ORDER

10-09-2026 (A.D. Choudhury, J)

1. We have heard Mr. N. J. Khataniar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. Also heard Mr. U. Sharma, learned Government counsel, appearing for the pro forma respondent No. 2.

2. The present intra-Court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.05.2026, passed in WP(C) No. 2212/2025, whereby the learned Single Judge interfered with the order dated 05.12.2024, issued by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, and directed the provincialisation of the service of the petitioner, subject to her not being otherwise ineligible.

3. The writ petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in Pub-Amlokhi A.S.Ahmedia L.P. School on 15.03.1999 and was subsequently appointed as its Headmistress. By the Notification dated 04.02.2021, one post of Teacher in the said school was provincialized, but the claim of the petitioner for provincialisation of service was rejected, particularly on the ground that her name did not appear in DISE Code up to 2012-2013.

4. DISE Code requirement for provincialisation under the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Service of Teachers and Re-organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (the Act, 2017 in short) has already been settled by this Bench in WA No. 334/2025 (The State of Assam & 2 Ors. Vs. Salek Ahmed & 19 Ors.).

5. The ratio of the judgment, insofar as requirement of DISE Code is concerned is that Section 2(zb) of the Act, 2017 prescribes that to be treated as Venture school, a school must have DISE Code issued on or before 2009-2010. Further, Section 3(xii) mandates verification of enrollment as per DISE Code 2009- 2010 or before as available in the records of the NEUPA.

6. In the aforesaid backdrop and taking note of Section 6, this Court in Salek Ahmed (supra), held that the Act, 2017 does not prescribe existence of individual teacher’s name in DISE Code upto 2011-2012 or 2012-2013, as an independent condition precedent for provincialisation.

7. Beyond that, the objection raised by the Education Department is to the actual name of the petitioner. The learned Single Judge noted that the petitioner's name appeared as “Jinnatun Nehar” in the DISE Code records for earlier years relating to the same school, with the same DISE Code and at the same location, and that subsequently her name appeared as “Zinnatun Nehar”. On the basis of these particulars, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the two names referred to are one and the same person.

8. We find no reason to take a different view. The respondents themselves do not dispute the identity of the School or its DISE Code. A mere variation in the spelling of the petitioner’s name, in the facts of the present case, cannot by itself constitute a valid basis for denying consideration of her claim, particularly when the other particulars contained in the DISE records establish continuity.

9. We may also note that the learned Single Judge has not found the petitioner eligible dehors the statutory requirement. The direction is expressly subject to the writ petitioner not being otherwise ineligible. In those circumstances, we find no ground to interfere with the judgment and order dated 19.05.2026 (supra), the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

10. The directions contained therein shall be complied with within the time stipulated by the learned Single Judge therein.

11. There shall be no order as to costs.

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant