JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Manojit Bhuyan, J. Heard Mr. RC Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner along with Mr. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the Respondents. 2. The primary issue relates to the entitlement of the petitioner for provincialisation of his services as the Principal of Paschim Barigog Anchalik Mahavidyalaya, Baranghati, Kamrup. The cause of action arose when the Respondent authority did not acknowledge provincialisation of the services of the petitioner, as reflected in the order dated 20.1.2014 issued under the hand of the Director, Higher Education, Assam. The reason for not doing so has been explained in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the Respondent authority, which, will be referred to in the later part of this order. 3. The petitioner initially served as a Subject Teacher in Botany at Paschim Barigog Dhirdutta Higher Secondary School, Nalbari for the period between 1985-1995, during which time, he obtained his Masters Degree in Botany and also obtained the Doctorate Degree from the Gauhati University. Thereafter, by a Notification issued by the Govt. of Assam in the Education (Higher) Department, dated 1.8.1995, the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer under Regulation 3(f) of the Assam Public Service Commission (Limitations and Functions) Regulations 1951 and was posted at the District Institute of Education and Training ('DIET' for short) at Azad. The appointments under Regulation 3(f) was extended from time to time during which time, the petitioner served at different stations. On each occasion, extension was made by Notification issued by the Govt. of Assam under the Education (Higher) Department. The condition stipulated was that the extension would take effect for a period of four months or till regular filling up of the post from the recommended panel list of the Assam Public Service Commission, whichever was earlier. 4. In the year 1996 and in terms of the Advertisement No. 2/96 issued by the Assam Public Service Commission, applications were invited for filling up certain posts of Lecturers in DIET under the Education (Higher) Department, Assam. Amongst the posts so advertised, it also included the post of Lecturer in Science, to which, the petitioner had responded. The qualification laid down was that a candidate must have Masters Degree in Science with BT/B.Ed. along with three years teaching experience. Amongst the posts so advertised, it also included the post of Lecturer in Science, to which, the petitioner had responded. The qualification laid down was that a candidate must have Masters Degree in Science with BT/B.Ed. along with three years teaching experience. According to the petitioner, after due selection by the Assam Public Service Commission, he was appointed as Lecturer in DIET on regular basis vide Notification dated 29.11.1999. Having earlier worked as Lecturer in DIET for the period from 1.8.1995 to November, 1999 under Regulation 3(f) and thereafter, on regular basis w.e.f. November, 1999, the petitioner left service as a Lecturer in DIET and joined as Principal of Paschim Barigog Anchalik Mahavidyalaya pursuant to the order dated 26.8.2005 issued by the competent authority of the College in question. The petitioner has been discharging his duties as such until today. 5. For the purpose of provincialisation of the College as well as the services of the teaching and non-teaching staff of the College in terms of the provisions under the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act 2011, as amended (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 2011'), the College records as well as the service records of all the serving employees were taken up by the District Scrutiny Committee so constituted under Sub-Section (6) of Section 10 of the aforesaid Act, 2011. In the verified list of eligible teachers prepared by the District Scrutiny Committee and endorsed by the Director of Higher Education, Assam, the petitioner's name figured as against the post of Principal of the College in question. On 20.1.2014, by an order issued by the Director of Higher Education, Assam, the services of the employees of the Paschim Barigog Anchalik Mahavidyalaya came to be provincialised w.e.f. 1.1.2013 sans the petitioner. Although representations had been filed towards provincialising his service in the College, such requests did not evoke any response. Constrained thus, the petitioner instituted this present proceeding. 6. The Respondent No. 2, i.e. the Director of Higher Education, Assam have filed affidavit-in-opposition and from the statements made therein, it has become clear that non-inclusion and non-provincialisation of the services of the petitioner was on account of the fact that he does not have teaching experience in Higher Educational Institutions prior to his appointments as the Principal of the College. Statements have been made to reiterate that the petitioner, who had served as Lecturer in DIET, the same cannot be construed as having served in institutions imparting higher education. According to the Respondent No. 2, the petitioner did not fulfil the eligibility criteria required for provincialisation of his services as Principal of the College, in that, he does not have the minimum teaching experience as required under the University Grant Commission Regulations. The Respondent No. 2 also clarified that after completion of 10 years of service, the petitioner would be entitled to provincialisation of his services as per the criteria laid down in the UGC guidelines, subject to the condition that there is no break in service. 7. The crux of the matter now revolves round the question as to whether the petitioner had total experience of 10 years of teaching in an institution of Higher Education. If it is held that the petitioner had the experience as required, it would mean that the action of the Respondent No. 2 in not provincialising the services of the petitioner as the Principal of the College is bad in law. 8. In so far as the manner and method for provincialisation of services of teaching and non-teaching employees of a venture educational institution, i.e. Degree College is concerned, the same is prescribed under Sub-section (3) of Section 4 of the aforesaid Act, 2011. The requirement under the Act is that the employees must acquire such educational as well as professional qualification as may be determined by the University Grants Commission from time to time. Reference is made to the Office Memorandum dated 13.1.2000 issued by the Govt. of Assam in the Education (Higher) Department whereby the State Govt. had decided to implement the schemes/norms in the Universities and Colleges in conformity with the UGC recommendation for ensuring observance of minimum qualifications for appointment of teaches in Universities and Colleges. In respect of appointment of Principal, other than the Cotton College, the prescription is that the person concerned must have (i) Master Degree with at least 55% of marks or its equivalent grade, (ii) Ph.D or equivalent qualification and (iii) total experience of 10 years of teaching/research in Universities/Colleges and other institutions of higher education. In respect of appointment of Principal, other than the Cotton College, the prescription is that the person concerned must have (i) Master Degree with at least 55% of marks or its equivalent grade, (ii) Ph.D or equivalent qualification and (iii) total experience of 10 years of teaching/research in Universities/Colleges and other institutions of higher education. To reiterate, in the present proceeding, the issue for decision is as to whether or not the petitioner had total experience of 10 years of teaching experience in an institution of higher education. 9. Mr. R.C. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner having worked as Lecturer in DIET for the period from 1995 to 1999 under the Regulation 3(f) of the APSC (L& F) Regulations 1951 and also having worked as Lecturer in DIET on regular basis for the period from 1999 to 2005, this itself renders the petitioner eligible and to have fulfilled the prescription of 10 years teaching experience under the UGC Regulations and the Office Memorandum dated 13.1.2000. Mr. Saikia further submits that for the period from 2005 until 2013, i.e. on the date when the employees of the College had been provincialised, the petitioner was discharging his duties as the Principal of the said College and having regard to the period of service as Principal, it is more than sufficient that he had all the qualifications and fulfilled all the criteria for being entitled to provincialisation of his service. Mr. Saikia also submits that the period from the year 1995 to 2005 during which period he worked as Lecturer in DIET, the same was under orders of the Govt. of Assam in the Education (Higher) Department. 10. Mr. M. Choudhury, learned counsel representing the State submits that teaching experience in an institution of higher education can only be counted on and from the date when the petitioner took charge and discharged function as the Principal of the College. The past service rendered by the petitioner as a Lecturer in DIET cannot be added to his teaching experience in view of Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the aforesaid Act, 2011, which, according to Mr. Choudhury, provides that past service rendered cannot be counted for any purpose whatsoever. Mr. The past service rendered by the petitioner as a Lecturer in DIET cannot be added to his teaching experience in view of Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the aforesaid Act, 2011, which, according to Mr. Choudhury, provides that past service rendered cannot be counted for any purpose whatsoever. Mr. Choudhury also submits that 10 years of teaching experience, which is a requirement under the Act and the UGC Regulations as well as the Office Memorandum dated 13.1.2000, is a mandatory requirement and the petitioner not having fulfilled that criteria, as such the action of the Respondent No. 2 cannot be faulted. Reliance is also placed in the decision of State of Punjab and Ors. v. Darshan Singh and Ors., reported in (2001) 9 SCC 321 to say that the placement in an upper grade is to be in compliance of the criteria laid down and no departure, whatsoever, can be permitted. 11. Having noticed the facts and the rival submissions of the parties, it is abundantly clear that for the purpose of provincialising the services of the employees in a Degree College, the person concerned must possess such requisite educational as well as professional qualifications as determined by the University Grants Commission from time to time. The fact that when a criteria has been laid down and no departure thereof can be permitted, is also the ratio laid down in the case relied upon by the Respondents. Coming back to the criteria of having total experience of 10 years of teaching in an institution of higher education, being the primary issue here, it appears that recruitment in DIET was under the control of the Education (Higher) Department, Govt. of Assam. The Advertisement of 1996 and the various appointments and extensions thereof made in favour of the petitioner as Lecturer in DIET also makes it abundantly clear that the same had been done under the auspices of the Education (Higher) Department. It was only by a Notification dated 14.12.2010, issued by the Govt. of Assam in the Education (Elementary) Department whereby a set of Rules was framed, named and styled as the Assam District Institute of Education and Training (DIET) Service Rules, 2010. From the said Notification, it is clear that on and from the date of issue of the Notification, DIET had been brought under the control of the Education (Elementary) Department. 12. From the said Notification, it is clear that on and from the date of issue of the Notification, DIET had been brought under the control of the Education (Elementary) Department. 12. For the period from 1995 to 1999, the petitioner having gained teaching experience as Lecturer in DIET and even thereafter as Principal of the College, and the entire service period having been under the administrative control of the Education (Higher) Department, Govt. of Assam, it leaves no room for doubt that the petitioner, for the period afore stated, gained teaching experience in an institution of higher education. Having said so, the action of the Respondent No. 2, i.e. the Director of Higher Education in not provincialising the services of the petitioner as the Principal of the College is improper and incorrect. The said action of the Respondent No. 2 does not find support of the law. At this stage, it would be worthwhile to reiterate that the verified list prepared by the District Scrutiny Committee, where the petitioner's name had also figured, was duly endorsed by the same Director of Higher Education. It cannot be comprehended as to on what grounds the petitioner's case was ignored from due provincialisation. 13. In view of the above, this writ petition stands allowed with a direction to the Respondent No. 2, i.e. Director of Higher Education, Assam to forthwith take steps towards provincialising of the services of the petitioner as the Principal of the Paschim Barigog Anchalik Mahavidyalaya, Baranghati, Kamrup. The exercise, as indicated above shall be completed by the Respondent No. 2 within a period of 3 (three) weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner is permitted to produce a copy of this order before the Respondent No. 2 for his doing the needful. No costs.