WP(C)/2930/2026 of JUTIKA BORO Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 3 ORS on 4 June 2026

ORDER

05.06.2026 Heard Mr. P. K. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Kaushik, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3; and Ms. R. M. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, Finance Department for the respondent No.4.

2. The petitioner claims to have been appointed as a Classical Teacher (Music) in Pragati High School, Rangia, on 27.01.2005, as per the resolution adopted by the Managing Committee.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that her case for provincialisation was recommended under the provisions of the Assam Educational (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011. The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is that, although her name was recommended for provincialisation, her service could not be provincialised. Subsequently, the legislative framework underwent several changes with the enactment of the Assam Educational (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2017.

4. At the very outset, the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment dated 18.11.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 13802 of 2025 and analogous cases, whereby, while setting aside paragraph 194 of the impugned judgment, it was directed that the provincialisation of the petitioner would take effect from 01.01.2013.

5. Mr. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the said judgment. Pursuant to the said judgment, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 18.02.2026 before the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, Kahilipara (respondent No. 3), seeking the same benefit of provincialisation of her service as in the case of the petitioners in the aforementioned petitions and appoint her as a Music Teacher. However, no decision has yet been taken on the said representation. Hence, the present writ petition has been filed seeking an appropriate direction.

6. During the course of hearing, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents fairly submitted that the petitioner’s representation may be examined by the competent authority in the light of the judgment dated 18.11.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that an appropriate decision may be taken thereon. It was further submitted that a reasonable period may be granted to the authority for undertaking such exercise.

7. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and upon their agreement, but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner’s claim, this writ petition is disposed of at the motion stage itself by directing the respondents, particularly respondent No. 3, namely, the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, to consider and dispose of the representation dated 18.02.2026 submitted by the petitioner for provincialisation the service of the petitioner as Music Teacher by taking into account the judgment dated 18.11.2025 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 13802 of 2025 and connected matters, as well as any other applicable law, rules, and government instructions governing the field. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by passing a reasoned order within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

8. In the event the authority finds the petitioner entitled to any benefit pursuant to the aforesaid judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, consequential benefits shall also be considered and extended in accordance with law.

9. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant