WP(C)/84/2022 of SIPRA DHAR Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS on 9 March 2026

ORDER

10.03.2026 Heard Mr. J.C. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 – 4. The grievance raised in this writ petition pertains to Provincialization Order No. EPD-15/Provin-LP(Act. 2017)/2021/1943, dated 5th February 2021, issued from Kahilipara by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, Kahilipara, Guwahati-19, whereby the services of Respondent No. 5 in this writ petition were provincialized. The orders of this Court reflect that, despite receipt of notice, Respondent No. 5 failed to appear and contest the petition. The writ petition alleges that Respondent No. 5, according to records, joined Bal Bikash Shiksha Sadan (L.P. School) in the year 1990 but obtained her High School Leaving Certificate qualification only in 2002. It is, therefore, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, in 1990, Respondent No. 5 did not possess the requisite qualification to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher in a L.P. school. It is further relevant to note that, upon provincialization of the services of Bal Bikash Shiksha Sadan (L.P. School), the school was amalgamated into Balmiki L.P. School, which was taken as the base school.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the reply furnished by Respondent No. 5 to the Public Information Officer, Office of the Deputy Inspector of Schools, Nagaon, Assam, wherein Respondent No. 5 herself provided the HSLC Examination Certificate issued by the Assam Sanskrit Board, Guwahati. The certificate reflects that Respondent No. 5 passed the Praveshika Examination held in 2002 and was placed in the 3rd Division. Further, Respondent No. 5 passed the Higher Secondary School Leaving Examination in 2018 under the Assam State Open School under the Assam Higher Secondary Education Council. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, since Respondent No. 5 was not qualified to hold the post of teacher in a L.P. School in 1990, her recommendation for provincialization of services was evidently erroneous and requires interference by this Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, in the absence of Respondent No. 5, it was the petitioner who should have been recommended for consideration for provincialization. The learned counsel contends that the mistake initially occurred at the level of the school when the names were recommended, and further persisted when the District Scrutiny Committee, did not carry out proper verification as required under the law. It is further submitted that the error continued at the State-Level Scrutiny Committee stage, where the Government, while finalizing the matter, also failed to verify the antecedents of the persons whose names were being forwarded. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that the order dated 05.02.2021, insofar as it relates to the provincialization of the services of Respondent No. 5, namely, Smti Aruna Haldar, Tutor in the Balmiki L.P. School, be interfered with, and further orders be passed directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for provincialization under the same terms and conditions on which the services of other teachers of the venture L.P. School have been taken up by the respondent authorities. Mr. Phukan, learned counsel for the state respondents, has referred to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Director, wherein the process of scrutinization has been elaborated. It has been stated that the District Scrutiny Committee initially recommended the services of two other teachers without including the names of either the petitioner or Respondent No. 5 in the first instance. However, by a letter dated 19.12.2019 submitted by the District Elementary Education Officer, certain corrections were made in the recommendation, to the extent that the name of Respondent No. 5 was included. Thereafter, as per the affidavit of Respondent No. 2, two persons, namely Jaylal Prasad Mahato and Respondent No. 5, were recommended for provincialization. The stand taken by the Director in the affidavit is that the name of the petitioner was not recommended by the District Scrutiny Committee, Nagaon, for provincialization as an Assistant Teacher; therefore, the petitioner’s services could not be provincialized. As regards the qualification required for appointment as an Assistant Teacher of an L.P. School prior to 10.11.1995, the Director has taken the stand that the minimum requisite qualification for the post of assistant teacher was HSLC passed. Respondent No. 2, in the affidavit, has further stated that after the notification of 10.11.1995 (sic. 2005), the minimum qualification for appointment as an Assistant Teacher was Higher Secondary or any other examination of equivalent standard with at least 45% marks in any of the qualified exams (HSLC or Higher Secondary) for general category candidates, and a minimum of 40% marks for reserved category candidates. The specific stand of the Director is that, at the time when Respondent No. 5 was shown to be appointed to the school, the requisite qualification for an Assistant Teacher of an L.P. School was HSLC. It is further stated that Respondent No. 5 passed the HSSLC examination in the year 2002. Mr. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondents, has referred to the list of untrained in-service teachers in unaided recognized schools given at page 28 of the amended writ petition, which is a tabulation made by the Headmaster/Principal of the school, showing that Respondent No. 5 passed the HSSLC examination in 2002. This Court has heard the learned counsel for contesting parties and perused the materials available on record. The records reveal that Respondent No. 5 procured the Class X (HSLC) certificate in 2002, and therefore, at the time of her appointment in 1990, she did not possess the requisite qualification to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher of an L.P. School. The Court has also noticed other inconsistencies, such as the tabulation forwarded by the headmaster/principal showing the respondent’s HSSLC qualification as on 2002. Additionally, the data submitted on 30th September 2009 under the signature of the Headmaster and Secretary shows Respondent No. 5 to have the highest qualification as HSLC. The documents submitted by Respondent No. 5 and attached to the reply of the RTI application itself indicate that she obtained her HSSLC qualification in 2018. Thus, it appears to this Court that the entire exercise for consideration of the services of Respondent No. 5 for provincialization was conducted on the basis of fraudulent and incorrect information supplied by the school authorities to the District Level Scrutiny Committee, which was then forwarded to the State Level Scrutiny Committee without proper verification of records. The State Level Scrutiny Committee also failed in its duty by forwarding the recommendation to the Government for approval without making proper inquiry into the information supplied by the school authorities. It is settled law that fraud vitiates the entire proceedings, and in the present case, when the very recommendation from the school was based on fraud, the final orders of provincialization cannot stand the scrutiny of law. In such circumstances, the Provincialization Order dated 05.02.2021 issued by the Director in so far as it relates to the provincialisation of respondent no.5, is interfered with by this Court and is accordingly set aside and quashed. As a consequential relief, Respondent No. 2, namely, the Director of Elementary Education, shall initiate appropriate steps from the school level itself to verify the records of the school and to take up the case of the petitioner for consideration for provincialization of her services in accordance with law. The Director shall also take appropriate steps to cause an inquiry into how and under what circumstances fraudulent information was supplied by the school authorities to the district-level authorities, providing unverified and false information during the process of provincialization of Respondent No. 5. It is clarified that, since the provincialization of the services of Respondent No. 5 was based on fraudulent and false information, the provincialization of her services stands voided ab initio. The case of the petitioner for provincialization shall be taken up within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order, and the process shall be completed within 90 days thereafter. The Director shall ensure that all necessary inquiries, as required by law, are made to verify the credentials of the petitioner while considering her case for provincialization of services. This Writ Petition is disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant