Smti Chitralekha Konwar vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 2400 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Smti Chitralekha Konwar vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors on 28 January, 2025

Author: Michael Zothankhuma

Bench: Michael Zothankhuma

                                                               Page No.# 1/6

GAHC010126942017




                                                        undefined

                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                         Case No. : WP(C)/1885/2023

         SMTI CHITRALEKHA KONWAR
         W/O TITU GOGOI
         R/O WARD NO. 3
         (NEAR IRRIGATION OFFICE)
         P.O.-DHEMAJI
         DIST-DHEMAJI
         ASSAM

          VERSUS

         THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
         REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF
         ASSAM
         EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPARTMENT
         DISPUR
         GUWAHATI-6

         2:THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM
          SECONDARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
         DISPUR
          GUWAHATI-6

         3:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION
         ASSAM
         KAHILIPARA
         GUWAHATI-19

         4:THE STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
         HEADED BY THE CHAIRMAN CUM DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY
         EDUCATION
         ASSAM
         KAHILIPARA
         GUWAHATI-19
                                                                       Page No.# 2/6

             5:THE DISTRICT LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
             HEADED BY THE CHAIRMAN CUM DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
             DHEMAJI
             DIST-DHEMAJI
             ASSAM

             6:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS
             DHEMAJI
             DIST-DHEMAJI
             ASSAM

             7:KHANINDRA CHANGMAI
             ASSISTANT TEACHERS
             MORIDHAL GIRLS HIGH SCHOOL
             MORIDHAL
             P.O.-MORIDHAL
             DIST-DHEMAJI
             ASSAM
             ------------
             Advocate for : MR. J I BORBHUIYA
             Advocate for : SC
             SEC. EDU. appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS


                                  BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

                                       ORDER

28.01.2025

1. Heard Mr. J.I. Borbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. J.C. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent no.7 and Mr. U. Sharma, learned counsel for the Secondary Education Department.

2. The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the decision of the State Level Scrutiny Committee (SLSC) in the meeting minutes dated 13.12.2022, whereby the respondent no.7 has been recommended for provincialisation as Assistant Teacher (Maths) in Moridhal Bahumukhi High Scool, Dhemaji. The petitioner's challenge to the recommendation of the provincialisation of the service of the Page No.# 3/6

respondent no.7, is on the ground that the petitioner is senior to the respondent no.7.

3. On the other hand, the case of the respondent no.7 is that though the petitioner is senior to the respondent no.7, the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "2017 Act") allows for provincialisation of only two teachers of a Venture High School, i.e. Science and Mathematics, for the core subjects, i.e. Mathematics, Science, English, MIL and Social Studies. Though the petitioner is a Science Teacher, the senior most Assistant Teacher of the Venture High School was also a Science Teacher and as such, the services of the senior most Science Teacher of the Venture High School, i.e. one Ajit Changmai was provincialised. As there could not be provincialisation of two Science Teachers, the provincialisation of the respondent no.7, who was a Maths Teacher had to be done, in terms of the 2017 Act.

4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

5. The issue relates to whether the service of the petitioner, who is senior to the respondent no.7, is to be provincialised in lieu of the respondent no.7, in terms of the 2017 Act. As can be seen from the documents on record and the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, the petitioner is a Science Teacher having the subject combination of Zoology, Botany and Chemistry, while the respondent no.7 is a Maths Teacher, having the subject combination of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. The provincialisation of the Page No.# 4/6

school and consideration of the services of two teachers of the school, was to be done in terms of the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the "2011 Act"). The 2011 Act was repealed by the 2017 Act.

6. The senior most teacher of the said school was one Shri Ajit Changmai, who was a Science Teacher. The second senior most teacher of the school was

the petitioner, who was also a Science Teacher. The 3 rd senior most teacher of the school was the respondent no.7, who was a Maths teacher. During consideration of the provincialisation of the services of the teachers in terms of the 2011 Act, the District Scrutiny Committee (DSC) recommended the provincialisation of the services of Shri Ajit Changmai, Science Teacher and the respondent no.7, who was a Maths teacher. The petitioner challenged the recommendation made for provincialisation of the service of the respondent no.7, vide WP(C) 5634/2012, on the ground that provincialisation of an Assistant Teacher under the 2011 Act should be done on the basis of seniority and the same could not be done on a subject-wise basis.

7. WP(C) 5634/2012 was disposed of, vide order dated 31.08.2016 by this Court, by holding that as per the judgment dated 05.05.2016 passed by the Division Bench in WA 290/2014, provincialisation in the category of Assistant Teacher (Science) would have to be made on the basis of seniority and not on the basis of subject combination.

8. In the meantime, the 2011 Act was repealed by the 2017 Act, which came Page No.# 5/6

into force on 05.05.2017.

9. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court again, vide WP(C) 4259/2019, challenging the proposal of the school authorities to recommend the respondent no.7 for provincialisation. WP(C) 4259/2019 was disposed of by this Court, vide order dated 06.03.2020, by holding that the DSC should examine the claim of the petitioner and if the petitioner was aggrieved by the decision of the DSC, the petitioner could approach the SLSC as per the 2017 Act. Thereafter the case of the petitioner and the respondent no.7 was referred to the SLSC on the basis of the meeting minutes dated 04.12.2020 of the DSC. The meeting minutes also recommended provincialisation of the service of the respondent no.7. The petitioner submitted an appeal under the 2017 Act praying that a direction should be issued to the DSC, to recommend the name of the petitioner for provincialisation of her service as Assistant Teacher (Science).

10. The petitioner also submitted a further writ petition, i.e. WP(C) 523/2021, challenging the DSC meeting minutes dated 04.12.2020, wherein the respondent no.7 was recommended for provincialisation by DSC. This Court disposed of WP(C) 523/2021, vide order dated 03.02.2021, by observing that the issue raised by the petitioner was to be considered by the SLSC. As can be seen from the above, the issue pertains to whether the services of the petitioner or the respondent no.7 should be provincialised in terms of the 2017 Act, inasmuch as, the 2011 has been repealed.

11. Section 3(1)(viii) of the 2017 Act provides as follows :-

"3(1)(viii) - In case of Venture ME School, there must be one Science teacher or Page No.# 6/6

tutor to teach Science and Mathematics subject. In case of Venture High School, there must be one teacher or tutor to each core subject i.e. Mathematics, Science, English, MIL and Social Studies"

12. A perusal of the above Section 3(1)(viii) of the 2017 Act clearly shows that services of the two teachers are to be provincialised, one to teach Science subject and the other to teach Maths subject. It is not disputed by the parties that the senior most teacher of the school, i.e. Ajit Changmai and the petitioner are both Science Teachers. It is also not disputed by the parties that Shri Ajit Changmai being senior to the petitioner, the service of Shri Ajit Changmai was provincialised as a Science Teacher. As such, the only Subject teacher whose service was to be provincialised, would have to be that of a Maths Teacher. The respondent no.7 being the only Maths Teacher, whose service is to be regularized in terms of the 2017 Act, this Court does not find any infirmity in the recommendation of the respondent no.7 for provincialisation, as a Maths Teacher. As the SLSC in it's meeting minutes dated 28.12.2021, has also recommended the provincialisation of the service of the respondent no.7 in terms of Section 3(1)(viii) of the 2017 Act, necessary orders for provincialisation of the service of the respondent no.7 should be passed by the concerned authorities at the earliest and preferably within a period of 1 (one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

13. In view of the above reasons, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant