[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Gauhati High Court
Smti Gunawati Panyang Alias Panyang ... vs The State Of Assam And Othrs on 22 May, 2026
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010098302026
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2653/2026
SMTI GUNAWATI PANYANG ALIAS PANYANG MORANG
WIFE OF SRI RUHIT MORANG GUNAWATI ,RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-
AYENGIA BORGAON, P.O. MORNOI BEBEJIA, P.S. GHILAMARA, DISTRICT-
LAKHIMPUR, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM and othrs
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6
2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSAM
KAHILIPARA
GUWAHATI-19
3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER
LAKHIMPUR
DISTRICT-LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
PIN787001.
4:THE DISTRICT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
LAKHIMPUR DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN
I.E. THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
LAKHIMPUR
ASSAM
PIN-787001
Page No.# 2/6
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M K NEOG, MR. S K SINGHA
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, GA, ASSAM
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
ORDER
22.05.2026
Heard Mr. M.K Neog, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also
heard Mr. B. Kaushik, Standing counsel, Elementary Education Department,
appearing for the respondent No. 1, 2 & 3 and Ms. K Phukon, learned counsel,
appearing for the respondent No. 4.
The learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by the
order dated 01.11.2025, passed by the Director of Elementary Education by
which the claim of the petitioner for provincialisation of services was rejected.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this
Court to the order dated 04.02.2025 passed in WP(C) No. 4067/2023, which
was a petition filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the non-consideration
of her case for provincialization under under the Act of 2011. Upon consideration
of the case projected by the petitioner, this Court had passed the following
orders :
Page No.# 3/6
"The letter dated 18.01.2025 issued by the Director of Elementary
Education, Assam clearly shows that a mistake had been committed by
the State respondents in provincialising the service of the respondent No.
5 instead of the petitioner, due to the mistake made by the District
Elementary Education Officer, who had recorded the petitioner as a
Science Teacher and the respondent No. 5 as a Hindi Teacher. It is not
disputed by anyone that the petitioner is a Hindi Teacher, who has been
working in the School till today as a Hindi Teacher. It is also not disputed
that the respondent No. 5 is a Science Teacher and has continued to be a
Science Teacher of the said School, even after the provincialization of his
service had been withdrawn, vide order dated 10.02.2016, issued by the
Director of Elementary Education.
10. The affidavit of the District Commissioner, Lakhimpur is to the
effect that District Level Scrutiny Committee had recommended the staff
pattern submitted by the District Elementary Education Officer earlier
However, a revised proposal had now been sent with the recommendation
of the District Level Scrutiny Committee to the Director of Elementary
Education, for correction of the name of the Hindi Teacher in Sanjukta
Subansiri Mising M.E. School, Lakhimpur.
11. In view of the fact that the petitioner's service should have
been provincialised as he is the Hindi Teacher of the said School and as
the mistake had occurred due to the making of a wrong staff pattern by
Page No.# 4/6
the District Elementary Education Officer, the respondents are directed to
consider the case of the petitioner for provincialization as a Hindi Teacher
of the said School, within a period of one month from the date of receipt
of a certified copy of this order.
12. In view of the fact that the Assam Venture Educational
Institutions (Provincialization of Services) Act 2011 and its amendments
have been struck down by this Court vide order dated 23.09.2016 passed
in WP(C) 3190/2012 and the Government has enacted the Assam
Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-Organisation of
Educational Institutions) Act, 2017, (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of
2017"), the case of the petitioner would have to be considered under the
Act of 2017.
13. The provincialization of the petitioner's service as a Hindi
Teacher, if found eligible, should be done w.e.f. the date of coming into
force of the Act of 2017, with all consequential benefits being given to him
from the date of coming into force of the Act of 2017.
14. The letter dated 18.01.2025 is made a part of the record and
marked as Annexure-X."
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the
orders passed by this Court, the respondent authorities were required to verify
Page No.# 5/6
whether the petitioner would have been otherwise eligible for provincialization
under the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialization of Services)
Act 2011 and, if found to be eligible, the provincialization was to be given effect
to from the date of coming into force of the Assam Education (Provincialization
of Services of Teachers and Re-Organisation of Educational Institutions) Act,
2017 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 2017".
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the rejection of
the case of the petitioner on the ground that he did not fulfill the eligibility
criteria under the Act of 2017 is in direct contravention with the orders passed
by this Court on the earlier occasion and, therefore, the order dated 04.11.2025
requires an interference of this court.
Issue notice, returnable in four weeks. Since all the respondents are
represented, no formal steps are required to be taken. Petitioner shall serve
extra copies of the return of petition upon the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents within a period of 7 days from today. The respondents would file
their response on or before the next date fixed.
List the matter on 14.07.2026.
Page No.# 6/6
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
