ORDER : 1. Aggrieved by the decision of the Director of Elementary Education, Assam (respondent 2) rejecting the claim of the petitioner for provincialization of his service against the post of Assistant Teacher of Purbanchal M.E. School, he is once again approaching this Court for appropriate relief. 2. According to the petitioner, he was appointed by the Managing Committee of the Purbanchal M.E. School, Lakhimpur District on 25-8-1991 as the founder teacher, but the Headmaster of the school (respondent 6), with a view to keep him out of school, did not allow him to put his signature in the attendance register by keeping the same at his residence. In the latter part of 2004, he had fallen seriously sick and undergone major operation at Life Care Nursing Home, Kishanganj, Bihar on two occasions. He had duly informed the respondent No. 6 about this and asked him to allow his wife to take classes ill his return, but was not allowed to do so. Even after his return, his attempt to take classes was thwarted by the respondent No. 6. In the year 2010, when financial grants were sanctioned by the State Government, he approached the respondent No. 5 and 6 for payment of his share. However, he came to learn that his service had already been terminated in 2005 as he had remained absent for long: he had never been informed about his termination nor had he been given a notice. The respondent No. 7 was appointed as Hindi Teacher in his place to accommodate the respondent No. 8 as Assistant Teacher thereby denying him of provincialization of service. When he approached the School Managing Committee, the Committee passed the resolution dated 1-6-2010 re-appointing him as the 6th Assistant Teacher of the school. As per the rules, the services of only five teachers could be provincialized, he would be deprived of the benefit of provincialization as he is the 6th Assistant Teacher. He, therefore, filed a representation to the District Elementary Education Officer, and Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur District whereupon an enquiry was conducted, which, however, was done in a haphazard manner and without hearing him. This prompted him to file WP (C) No. 1526/13 before this Court, which by the order dated 25-11-2013 had directed the respondent No. 2 to hear the parties and pass an appropriate order. The respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order. This prompted him to file WP (C) No. 1526/13 before this Court, which by the order dated 25-11-2013 had directed the respondent No. 2 to hear the parties and pass an appropriate order. The respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order. Aggrieved by this, this writ petition is now preferred by the petitioner. 3. No affidavit-in-opposition is filed by the State-respondents. However, on perusing the writ petition and after hearing Mr. I. Hussain, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. N. Sarma, the learned standing counsel for the Education (Elementary) Department, Assam, at some length, I am of the view that there is absolutely no merit in the case of the petitioner. Under Section 4(2) of the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialization of Services) Act, 2011 the number of employees in both teaching and non-teaching cadre in each of the Venture Educational Institution, whose services are provincialized or to be provincialized under the Act, shall not exceed as specified in the Schedule appended to the Act. In the case of LP School, the number of Assistant Teacher is two in the case of posts (General) whereas for mixed schools, there are four posts of Assistant Teacher. In the instant case, the petitioner happens to be the 6th Assistant Teacher of the school, which has now become a bit crowded. There is now absolutely no possibility of provincializing the service of the petitioner as the Assistant Teacher of the school: he is at the most an excess teacher. The view taken by the respondent No. 2 in rejecting the claim for provincialization of his service by the petitioner does not suffer from any infirmity warranting the interference of this Court. 4. For the reasons stated in the foregoing, there is no merit in this writ petition, which is, therefore, dismissed. The parties are, however, directed to bear their respective costs.