WP(C)/3393/2013 of MISS BONTI BORAH and ANR. Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 10 ORS on 27 April 2026

ORDER

Date : 28.04.2026

Heard Ms. G. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 98 of 2022 and Ms. K. Phukan, learned Government Advocate, Assam, for the respondent Nos. 1 & 5; Ms. K. Konwar, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department, Government of Assam and Mr. G. Uddin, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 8 & 9. Also heard Mr. S. R. A. Naser, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 3393 of 2013 and Ms. K. Phukan, learned Government Advocate, Assam, for the respondent Nos. 1 & 4; Ms. S. Konwar, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department, Government of Assam, for the respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5 & 6; Mr. G. Uddin, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 and Mr. B. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. R. Deka, learned counsel for the private respondent Nos. 8, 9, 10, & 11. [2.] Both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common Order as the issues involved are similar and identical. [3.] The facts of the case in brief is that there is a Catholic Mission School at Salna in the district of Nagaon, Assam, which comprises of Lower Primary Section, Middle English Section (Upper Primary Section) and High School Section. There is no dispute to the fact that the Lower Primary Section has already been provincialised in the year 2013 under the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Service) Act, 2011 (Act of 2011) as amended in 2012. Similarly, the High School Section was also provincialised in the year 2021 as per the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (Act of

2017). Therefore, what remains is that the provincialisation of the Middle English School Section (Upper Primary Section). [4.] It is the projected case of the parties concerned that the district-wise list of Venture L.P./M.E. School was published in the official website of the respondents concerned on 06.03.2013, wherein the names of the petitioners in WP(C) No. 98 of 2022 figures at Serial Nos. 30 & 123 respectively for the district of Nagaon. While, the process for provincialisation of their services was being considered, the petitioners in WP(C) No. 3393 of 2013 approached this Court and pending finalization of the said writ petition, the case for provincialisation could not be taken up for consideration. According to the petitioners in WP(C) No. 98 of 2022, they are not arrayed as private respondents of WP(C) No. 3393 of 2013 and therefore inclusion of their names in the district-wise list of Venture L.P./M.E. Schools published in the official website on 06.03.2013 should be carried forward independent of what the petitioners in WP(C) No. 3393 of 2013 had initiated in the writ petition. However, it so happened that WP(C) No. 3393 of 2013 came to be dismissed on the ground that the School in question was a minority educational institute under Article - 30 of the Constitution of India and therefore, the writ petition was found to be not maintainable. [5.] Subsequently, the respondent No. 7 in the writ petition i.e. WP(C) No. 3393 of 2013 filed Review Petition No. 72 of 2021 and likewise, the writ petitioners in WP(C) No. 3393 of 2013 also filed Review Petition No. 85 of 2022 praying for recalling the Order dated 02.03.2016 by which the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable by relying upon to the Judgment of the Apex Court in Ambika Prasad Karen Vs. State of Assam & Ors., (Civil Appeal No. 1710-1721 of 1987 & 1074 of 1987) amongst others. Accordingly, the writ petition was restored to file vide order dated 20.06.2025.

[6.] The learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 3393 of 2013 submits that the grievance of the petitioners was that despite their seniority position in the School, their names did not find place in the district-wise list for Venture L.P./M.E. School published in the official website on 06.03.2013 and therefore, they submitted their representations before the Director of Elementary Education, Government of Assam on 19.04.2013, the District Elementary Education Officer, Nagaon on 22.04.2013 and before the Deputy Commissioner, Nagaon on 07.05.2013 seeking inclusion of their names in the list. Since, their representations were not considered and having no option, they have approached this Court. [7.] The learned counsel also submits that the petitioners continued to work in the School till the year 2018 but thereafter, they were not permitted to continue. The learned counsel however submits that as the petitioners have rendered a long years of service in the School and that their writ petition has been revived and they have not yet attained the age of superannuation, they are eligible to be considered for provincialisation of their services in terms of the Act of 2017. The learned counsel submits that since the list prepared during the subsistence of the Act of 2011, the respondent authorities may be directed to consider their cases as per the Act of 2017. [8.] The learned counsel for the petitioners in WP(C) No. 98 of 2022 submits that although the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the decision rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Dilip Kumar Das Vs. State of Assam & Anr., reported in 2019 (2) GLT 135, the petitioners have no objection if their case is considered in terms of the relevant provisions of the Act of 2017. The learned counsel submits that the names of the petitioners indeed figured in the list that was prepared and in view of the pending litigation initiated by the other teachers, the petitioners have been denied the benefit of provincialisation of their services till date. [9.] Mr. B. D. Das, learned Senior Counsel also submits that since the Act of 2011 has been struck down by this Court and thereafter, the Act of 2017 enacted, this Court may direct the Director of Elementary Education, Govt. of Assam to place the case of the teachers of M.E. School (Upper Primary School) for provincialisation of their services before the District Scrutiny Committee and thereafter, the State Level Committee in terms of the Section 13 of the Act of 2017. He submits that the criteria for consideration for provincialisation of services are already provided under the Act of 2017 and therefore, there will not be any difficulty for the respondent authorities to consider the case of those who are eligible under the said Act for provincialisation of their services. [10.] Thus, upon considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and upon perusal of the materials available on record, the Director of Elementary Education, Govt. of Assam is directed to place the name of the petitioners as well as the private respondents for provincialisation of their services as M.E. School Teacher in terms of the Act of 2017 before the District Scrutiny Committee in terms of the Section 13 of the Act of 2017. The petitioners as well as the private respondents shall therefore submit their respective individual applications along with all such supporting documents that may be necessary before the Director of Elementary Education, Govt. of Assam, within a period of fifteen (15) days from today. Upon receipt of the same, the Director of Elementary Education, Govt. of Assam shall take the matter forward in terms of the Section 13 of Act of 2017 expeditiously. The entire process of scrutinization shall be carried out by the District Scrutiny Committee and the State Level Committee, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the communication from the Director of Elementary Education, Govt. of Assam. [11.] With the above observations and directions, both the writ petitions are disposed of. No cost.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant