JUDGMENT AND ORDER : A.K. Goswami, J. By this writ application, the petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus to the respondent authorities to provincialise the services of the petitioner as lecturer in the subject of Advance Assamese in Bhibiram Hazarika Junior College (hereinafter referred to as 'the college'), Dhalpur, in the District of Lakhimpur, as per provisions of the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of services) Act, 2011, as amended by the Amendment Act, 2012 (for short, 'the Act'), to grant consequential admissible benefits and also to direct the respondents to rescind/cancel the provincialisation of services of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 as lecturers in Logic & Philosophy and Sociology, respectively, in the said college. 2. At the outset, the facts, as set out in the writ petition may briefly be noticed. 3. The case of the petitioner is that she was selected by the Governing Body of the college for the post of lecturer in Advance Assamese in the college, which is a junior college, by an order of appointment dated 26.05.2001. The Assam Higher Secondary Education Council (for short, 'the Council'), in its meeting held on 09.12.1991, had recommended granting of academic permission to some junior colleges, including the present college, with the subjects of English, MIL (Assamese), Education, History, Political Science, Economics and Advance Assamese and, by a letter dated 17.12.1991, the Council requested the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department, to accord necessary Government concurrence and, accordingly, the Government of Assam conveyed its concurrence for permission to start Higher Secondary (Arts) First Year course in those colleges on the condition that Government would not take any financial liability and that no Three-Year Degree course would be started in those junior colleges without prior permission of the Government. The Council, in a meeting held on 08.04.1999, recommended to accord provisional recognition of '+2 stage' for one year with effect from 01.06.1998 to 31.05.1999 in respect of the subjects mentioned therein subject to approval of the Government in the streams and subjects indicated therein, which included the subjects for which concurrence had been granted. The Government had conveyed its concurrence on recognition, vide its order dated 17.02.2003, for '+2 stage' in respect of all the seven original subjects including Advance Assamese. 4. The Government had conveyed its concurrence on recognition, vide its order dated 17.02.2003, for '+2 stage' in respect of all the seven original subjects including Advance Assamese. 4. The respondent No. 6 was appointed in the college on 01.06.2000 as a lecturer in Logic & Philosophy and the respondent No. 7 was appointed in the same college on 02.04.1999 as a lecturer in Sociology and, at the time of their appointment, the Council had not granted permission to the college to introduce the said subjects and there was no Government concurrence also. Subsequently, on 09.12.2003, the Council accorded permission to introduce the subjects of Sociology and Logic & Philosophy with effect from 2003-2004 academic session and the same was conveyed by the Secretary of the Council on 26.12.2003. The Government, vide order dated 30.11.2010, granted concurrence for the aforesaid subjects up to '+2 stage' as additional subjects. 5. The Principal of the college submitted a proposal on 06.03.2012 for provincialisation of services of eight lecturers as per Schedule of the Act. The number of posts of lecturers to be provincialised in Arts stream of a junior college was fixed at maximum of eight only. The name of the petitioner was at Sl. No. 7 and the name of the respondent No. 7 at the 8th slot and the name of respondent No. 6 was omitted. Against the non-inclusion of the name of the respondent No. 6 and the inclusion of the name of the petitioner in the aforesaid proposal, respondent No. 6 had filed a writ petition, which was registered as WP(C) 250/2012, and this Court disposed of the writ petition by an order dated 22.06.2012 directing the District Scrutiny Committee, constituted under Section 10 of the Act, to scrutinise the claim of the petitioner in the said case as well as that of the respondent No. 6 therein (the petitioner in the instant writ petition) on the basis of college records as well as relevant rules and guidelines for the purpose of provincialisation of service. Having come to learn that the District Scrutiny Committee had taken a decision holding the respondent No. 6 herein to be senior to the present petitioner, which recommendation was also accepted by the Director of Secondary Education thereby provincialising the service of the respondent No. 6 as well as respondent No. 7 and depriving the petitioner from the benefit of provincialisation, the present petition is filed by the petitioner. 6. The stand taken by the respondent No. 6 in the affidavit is that the respondent No. 6 is senior to the petitioner as she was appointed prior in point of time. It is also pleaded that this Court had recorded a finding that the date of concurrence is not a relevant condition in the matter of provincialisation of the teaching staff under the Act and, therefore, this Court having adjudicated the issue, the present petition is barred by the principle of res judicata. The respondent No. 7, in her affidavit filed, took the stand that she is much senior to the petitioner as well as to the respondent No. 6. It is pleaded that the dispute, in any view of the matter, is between the petitioner and the respondent No. 6, which is also demonstrated by the fact that the respondent No. 6 did not array her as a party-respondent in WP(C) 250/2012, and that she had been needlessly arrayed as a party respondent in the present proceeding. She had also taken the stand that the present writ petition is barred by the principle of res judicata and she referred to a judgment of this Court dated 15.10.2014 passed in WP(C) 5164/2014 (Rhituraj Saikia Vs. State of Assam and Ors.), reported in 2015 (1) GLT 624. Respondent No. 5, i.e., the Principal of the college, has stated in his affidavit that he had submitted the proposal for provincialisation of eight lecturers including the seven lecturers teaching the original seven subjects and, out of the two additional subjects of Sociology and Logic & Philosophy, he had included the lecturer in Sociology on the ground that Sociology was at Sl. No. 1 in the list of new subjects. He has not disputed the factual aspects of the case relating to appointment, recognition, concurrence, etc., as projected by the petitioner. He has taken a stand in the affidavit that seniority of the respondent Nos. No. 1 in the list of new subjects. He has not disputed the factual aspects of the case relating to appointment, recognition, concurrence, etc., as projected by the petitioner. He has taken a stand in the affidavit that seniority of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have to be counted only after grant of permission to introduce the concerned subjects in the college. 7. The Director of Secondary Education, in his affidavit has stated that the Government had accorded '+ 2 Stage' concurrence to the college in two phases: one on 17.02.2003 with the subjects of English, MIL (Assamese), Advance Assamese, Economics, Political Science, History and Education, and the other on 30.11.2010 with the subjects of Logic & Philosophy and Sociology. The District Scrutiny Committee had shown the date of joining of the petitioner, respondent No. 6 and respondent No. 7 as 28.05.2001, 01.06.2000 and 12.04.1999, respectively. The senior-most teacher is eligible to get provincialisation and as only eight lecturers could be provincialised under the scheme of the Act, respondent No. 6 was provincialised based on seniority and the petitioner had to be left out from the process of provincialisation. 8. I have heard Ms. J.M. Konwar, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Mr. S. Saikia, learned Senior Standing counsel, Education (Secondary) Department, appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3; Ms. N. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6; Mr. N. Bora, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 7; and Mr. Parag J. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5. None appears for the respondent No. 4, i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Lakhimpur. 9. Ms. J.M. Konwar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is not in dispute that Government concurrence in respect of '+ 2 Stage' in the subject of Advance Assamese was granted on 17.02.2003 and that of Logic & Philosophy and Sociology only on 30.11.2010 and, therefore, in view of the decision rendered on 16.06.2015 in the case of Md. Amjad Ali Sheikh Vs. State of Assam and Ors., which was registered as WP(C) 5010/2013, provincialisation of service of respondent Nos. Amjad Ali Sheikh Vs. State of Assam and Ors., which was registered as WP(C) 5010/2013, provincialisation of service of respondent Nos. 6 and 7 is liable to be interfered with and the respondents are liable to be directed to provincialise the service of the petitioner inasmuch as in the aforesaid judgement, this Court had held that an employee would be eligible for provincialisation only after seven years from the date of according of Government concurrence for '+ 2 Stage'. With reference to the Regulations on Recognition of Higher Secondary and Junior colleges, 1989, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as per Regulation 3, no student is to be admitted in the stream/subject till such time permission to start Higher Secondary School/Junior college is accorded by the Council and permission to start the proposed stream/subject in the concerned Higher Secondary school/Junior college is obtained. It is submitted that, in the instant case, it is manifest that only on 26.12.2003, permission to introduce Sociology and Logic & Philosophy was granted by the Council and, surprisingly, respondent Nos. 6 and 7 had been appointed in the subjects of Logic & Philosophy and Sociology, respectively, on 01.06.2000 and 02.04.1999, respectively, even before permission was granted by the Council. She has also drawn the attention of the Court to Regulation 15 on this count with regard to prohibition for admission of students before permission is granted to start classes. 10. Ms. Konwar has also submitted that the plea taken by the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in their affidavit that the present writ petition is barred by the principle of res judicata is misconceived inasmuch as no finding on the issues that have arisen in the instant case was recorded by this Court in the earlier round of litigation in WP(C) 250/2012. It is submitted that in Md. Amjad Ali (supra), a stand was taken by the Director of Secondary Education that Government concurrence for ' + 2 Stage' in respect of the subject of the petitioner therein, namely, Logic & Philosophy had been granted only on 30.11.2010 and, therefore, the petitioner, though senior, was not recommended for provincialisation and, thus, in the instant case, manifestly, a contrary stand has been taken by him. 11. Mr. 11. Mr. S. Saikia, learned Senior Standing counsel, Education (Secondary) Department, submits that it appears to him that the instant case is covered by the decision rendered in Md. Amjad Ali (supra). 12. Same stand, as taken by Mr. Saikia, has been taken by Mr. Parag J. Saikia, learned counsel for respondent No. 5. 13. Ms. N. Saikia, learned counsel for respondent No. 6 has vehemently argued that this Court need not go into the question as to whether this case is covered by the judgment rendered in the case of Md. Amjad Ali (supra) or not as the instant writ petition is barred by the principle of res judicata in view of the judgment of this Court, dated 22.06.2012, in WP(C) 250/2012. Learned counsel submits that, even otherwise, the judgment rendered in Md. Amjad Ali (supra) will not apply to the facts of the case. She also submits that the aforesaid judgment had failed to take note of the relevant provisions, more particularly, Section 4(1) of the Act in correct perspective. 14. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 15. Having regard to the contours of the submissions advanced, at the threshold, it will be appropriate to determine as to whether this writ petition is hit by the principle of res judicata. 16. In order to appreciate the issue, it will be necessary to quote, in its entirety, the order dated 22.06.2012, rendered in WP(C) 250/2012 and, accordingly, the same is reproduced below: "Heard Mrs. N. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. M.R. Pathak, learned standing counsel, Education Department appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. A. Motleb, learned State counsel appearing for the respondent No. 4. Also heard Mr. D. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 and Mr. S. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that though she was appointed as Lecturer in Logic & Philosophy in Bhibiram Hazarika College in the district of Lakhimpur, the Principal of the said college did not forward her particulars to the Government authority for consideration for provincialisation of her services under the provisions of the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 (in short, "2011 Act"). The petitioner, therefore, has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider her case along with other teaching and non teaching staff of the said college in the matter of provincialisation of services. Mrs. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the petitioner having been appointed in the year 2000, prior to the appointment of the respondent No.6, the college authority ought to have forwarded the particulars of the petitioner to the authority of the Education Department for the purpose of consideration for provincialisation of her services, which has not been sent on the ground that the subject Logic & Philosophy was recognised during the financial year 2003-04, though no such consideration is attached in the matter of provincialisation of the services of the teaching and non teaching staff, which is required to be made keeping in mind the seniority of the lecturers. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5 and Mr. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.6, on the other hand, have submitted that no illegality has been committed by the respondent No.5 in not sending the particulars of the petitioner and in sending the particulars of the respondent No.6 as at the time when the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer, no concurrence was accorded by the departmental authority for starting of the subject Logic & Philosophy, concurrence of which was accorded during the financial year 2003-04 only, i.e. much after appointment of the respondent No. 6. Mr. Pathak, learned standing counsel, Education Department submits that since the petitioner as well as the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have raised the disputed questions and as Section 10 of the 2011 Act requires scrutiny of the particulars submitted by the Principal of a college, necessary scrutiny shall be done by the District Scrutiny Committee as required under Section 10 of the aforesaid 2011 Act, on the basis of the college records. It has also been submitted that the question as to whether the date of receiving the concurrence for opening of the subject Logic & Philosophy, is the relevant consideration, for the purpose of provincialisation by the authority, shall also be considered, as per the guidelines issued. It has also been submitted that the question as to whether the date of receiving the concurrence for opening of the subject Logic & Philosophy, is the relevant consideration, for the purpose of provincialisation by the authority, shall also be considered, as per the guidelines issued. It appears that while the petitioner is claiming that she was appointed in the year 2000 and as such entitled to be considered for provincialisation, the same has been refuted by the respondents contending that at the time of her appointment, there was no concurrence received form the departmental authority for opening of the subject Logic & Philosophy. could be placed before this Court to ascertain as to whether, in the matter of provincialisation of the teaching staff under the provisions of the 2011 Act, the date of concurrence for imparting education in a subject is relevant consideration. That being the position and also having regard to the provisions contained in Section 10 of the 2011 Act, the present petition is disposed of directing the District Scrutiny Committee to scrutinise the claim of the petitioner vis-à-vis the respondent No.6 and also the other teaching and non teaching staff of the aforesaid college before taking any decision relating to the provincialisation of the services of the teaching and non teaching staff of the aforesaid junior college. Such verification shall be made on the basis of the college records as well as the relevant rules and guidelines and whenever the case of the teaching and non teaching staff of the said college is taken up for consideration. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs." 17. As reflected in the order, according to Ms. Saikia, who had appeared for the petitioner in WP(C) 250/2012, recognition granted to the subject of Logic & Philosophy in the financial year 2003-2004 is not a consideration attached in the matter of provincialisation of service, while, according to the counsel for the respondent No. 5 in the said litigation, i.e., the College Principal, who is also respondent No. 5 in the instant case, and the counsel for the respondent No. 6 therein, who is the petitioner herein, according of concurrence, which was granted in the year 2003-2004, is a relevant consideration. The departmental counsel had submitted that as the disputed questions of fact had been raised, it would be necessary for the District Scrutiny Committee to make a scrutiny on the basis of college records, including in respect of the question as to whether the date of receiving concurrence for opening of the subject of Logic & Philosophy is a relevant consideration for the purpose of provincialisation by the authority as per the guidelines issued in this regard. The Court had noted that could be placed before the Court to ascertain as to whether, under the provisions of the Act, date of concurrence is a relevant consideration in the matter of provincialisation of the teaching staff and, accordingly, the Court directed the District Scrutiny Committee to make necessary verification on the basis of college records as well as the relevant Rules and guidelines whenever cases of teaching and non-teaching staff of the college is taken into consideration for provincialisation. 18. From a perusal of the order dated 22.06.2012, rendered in WP(C) 250/2012, it becomes clear that apart from Section 10 of the Act, which provides for constitution of the District Scrutiny Committee, no other provision of the Act had been adverted to. From a reading of the order, as a whole, it is clear to this Court that no finding was recorded as to whether the date of concurrence is a relevant consideration for the purpose of provincialisation and the entire issue was left open for consideration by the District Scrutiny Committee. 19. It is also relevant to note, at this stage, that the words "recognition" and "concurrence" were used in the said order and it is evident from the materials on record in the instant case that in the year 2003-2004 academic session, permission was accorded by the Council to introduce the additional subjects of Sociology and Logic & Philosophy. Apart from the aforesaid issue of granting permission to introduce the subject of Sociology and Logic & Philosophy, which was loosely referred to by the Government in the earlier round of litigation as 'recognition'/'concurrence', no other issues had arisen for consideration. 20. Apart from the aforesaid issue of granting permission to introduce the subject of Sociology and Logic & Philosophy, which was loosely referred to by the Government in the earlier round of litigation as 'recognition'/'concurrence', no other issues had arisen for consideration. 20. In Rhituraj Saikia (supra), the Court recorded that in the previous round of litigation, three categories of findings had been recorded, which are as follows: "(i) the private respondents are senior to the petitioner herein inasmuch as they were appointed as Lecturers in Physics and Statistics in 1999, whereas the petitioner and the other Lecturer were appointed only in the year 2007 and 2006; (ii) an the admission was made by the Director of Higher Education that mistakes were committed by him by substituting the names of the private respondents herein by the names of the petitioner and one other Lecturer in the list prepared by him for provincialization of their services; (iii) the Director of Higher Education, having admitted such mistakes, ought to have rectified the same and thereafter placed the same before the Education Department for issuance of the notification." 21. On the basis of such findings, a direction was issued to the Director of Higher Education to pass order consistently with the observations made by the Court. This Court, in Rhituraj Saikia (supra), categorically observed that in the earlier round of litigation, the issues had been decisively decided against the petitioner therein and he ought to have carried the matter in appeal if he was aggrieved and, therefore, even if the decision was erroneous on a question of law and fact, the same issue could not be re-agitated in view of the doctrine of res judicata. The aforesaid case does not come to the aid of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 as no decision on any of the issues was rendered by this Court in the earlier round of litigation. Thus, the plea of non-maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of res judicata fails. 22. The Act was enacted to provincialise the services of the employees of the venture educational institutions in the State of Assam and to restrict further establishment of such educational institutions in the State. Thus, the plea of non-maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of res judicata fails. 22. The Act was enacted to provincialise the services of the employees of the venture educational institutions in the State of Assam and to restrict further establishment of such educational institutions in the State. Venture Higher Secondary School, as defined in Section 2(g) means a Higher Secondary School imparting education up to Class XII and established by the people of the locality on or before 01.01.2006, which has received permission from the State Government on or before 01.01.2006 and not provincialised under any Act earlier enacted by the State Legislature, and includes junior colleges established by the people of the locality on or before 01.01.2006, which had received concurrence from the Government and permission from the Assam Higher Secondary Education Council on or before 01.01.2006. Venture educational institutions, as defined in Section 2(t), means and includes venture Degree college, venture Higher Secondary School, venture High School, venture ME school and venture primary school situated within the State of Assam. Section 4 of the Act provides that the services of the employees of all eligible venture educational institutions under Section 3 shall be deemed to have been provincialised on the date of coming into force of the Act and they shall become employees of the State Government with effect from that date, provided that such institutions have completed at least 7 years of imparting education from the date of affiliation, recognition, concurrence or permission, as the case may be, as on the date of coming into force of the Act. The first proviso to Section 4(1) of the Act provides that those who have not completed seven years, as referred to in Section 4(1) of the Act, shall be provincialised as and when the educational institution completes seven years of imparting education in terms of Section 4(1). Section 4(2) provides a cap on the number of employees, in both teaching and non-teaching category in each of the venture educational institution, services of whom are provincialised or to be provincialised, under the Act, to the effect that it shall not exceed as specified in the Schedule appended to the Act. So far as the stream of Arts for a junior college is concerned, services of maximum eight numbers of lecturers can be provincialised. 23. So far as the stream of Arts for a junior college is concerned, services of maximum eight numbers of lecturers can be provincialised. 23. The first proviso to Section 4(2) provides that where the number of such employees serving in venture educational institutions exceeds the number as specified in the Schedule, provincialisation of services of the employees shall be on the basis of seniority in the respective category in the concerned educational institution. The State Government shall not have any liability whatsoever in regard to excess employees. It is also provided that the State Government shall have no liability whatsoever in respect of any past liability of venture educational institutions whose employees have been provincialised under the Act. Section 4(3) so far as it relates to venture educational institutions up to High Secondary level, provides that the service of the teaching or non-teaching employees shall be considered for provincialisation only if they have the requisite academic and professional qualifications prescribed by the relevant rules at the time of their initial appointment. 24. The issue that had fallen for consideration in Md. Amjad Ali (supra), is formulated in paragraph 16 thereof. For better understanding, the said paragraph is quoted herein below: "16. Thus, the question that has to be decided in the writ petition is with regard to whether concurrence is required to be given by the State Government in respect of each subject and whether seniority of the Lecturers will have to be decided only in respect of a subject taught which has received concurrence of the Government. Petitioner's case in the present case is that concurrence need not be given in respect of a subject and the entire service period of the Lecturer has to be taken into account for the purpose of provincialisation. The seniority of a Lecturer cannot be considered only from the date when a subject has been given concurrence by the Government. The respondents on the other hand have submitted that seniority of a Lecturer will have to be decided only after a lapse of 10 years (now changed to 7 years w.e.f 2013) from the date of concurrence given by the Government to the subject in question and not from the date of joining. The respondents on the other hand have submitted that seniority of a Lecturer will have to be decided only after a lapse of 10 years (now changed to 7 years w.e.f 2013) from the date of concurrence given by the Government to the subject in question and not from the date of joining. For example, if a person had joined in the year 1990 and the subject had been given +2 concurrence only in the year 1995, then the seniority of the Lecturer of that particular subject will have to be counted only from 1995 and not from 1990." 25. In paragraph 17 of Md. Amjad Ali (supra), the Court observed thus: "17. Thus, the question that has to be decided is with regard to whether the aforesaid contentions of the petitioner and the respondents are covered by Section 3(1) and (2) read with Section 4(1) of the 2011 Act. The further question that may have to be considered is also with regard to whether the seniority of a Lecturer has to be confined only to Section 4(2) of the 2011 Act read with the Schedule. " 26. In paragraph 19 of Md. Amjad Ali (supra), the Court held as follows: "19. The petitioner's subject i.e. Logic & Philosophy had been given +2 concurrence only in the year 2010 and even if we assume that all the three requirements of Section 3 have been fulfilled, then the other condition required to be fulfilled for counting the petitioner's service as a teacher of Logic & Philosophy, has to be construed in the light of Section 4(1) of the 2011 Act, which states, that the services of the employees of all eligible venture educational institutions under Section 3 shall be deemed to have been provincialised on the date of coming into force of the 2011 Act, provided such institutions have completed at least 7 years of imparting education from the date of affiliation, recognition, concurrence or permission. The proviso to Section 4(1) of the 2011 Act also states that the services of those employees who have not completed 7 years of imparting education shall be provincialised as and when the concerned educational institution completes 7 years of imparting education from such date of affiliation, recognition, concurrence or permission, as the case may be. The proviso to Section 4(1) of the 2011 Act also states that the services of those employees who have not completed 7 years of imparting education shall be provincialised as and when the concerned educational institution completes 7 years of imparting education from such date of affiliation, recognition, concurrence or permission, as the case may be. The period of 7 years mentioned in Section 4 of the 2011 Act was earlier 10 years and the figure 10' had been replaced by the figure 7' in the year 2013 (by the Assam Act XX of 2013). Thus, on a reading of Section 3(2) along with Section 4(1) of the 2011 Act, it becomes crystal clear that the petitioner would become eligible for provincialisation only after 7 years from the date +2 concurrence was given to the subject of Logic & Philosophy. The +2 concurrence having been given to the said subject only on 30.11.2010, the petitioner will become eligible for provincialisation only on 30.11.2017. Thus, the impugned list dated 12.4.2013 published in the website for provincialisation of lecturers/employees has rightly not included the petitioner." 27. In paragraph 21 of Md. Amjad Ali (supra), this Court held as follows: "21. The word 'recognition' mentioned in Section 3(2) of the 2011 Act has to be read in relation to the "Regulations on Recognition of Higher Secondary & Junior College, 1989", which deals with establishment of a new institution i.e. school/college. The word 'affiliation' in Section 3(2) cannot be read with respect to a particular subject. The words 'minimum enrolment' is relatable to Section 3(1)(ii). The word 'concurrence' in Section 3(2) has to be read in relation to the word 'subject' as mentioned in Section 3(2) itself. Thus, I find that an employee of a venture educational institution whose service is to be regularised has to have his seniority counted from the date the concurrence was given by the State Government to the subject he was teaching." 28. In paragraph 22 of the judgment, this Court held as follows: "22. Thus, I find that an employee of a venture educational institution whose service is to be regularised has to have his seniority counted from the date the concurrence was given by the State Government to the subject he was teaching." 28. In paragraph 22 of the judgment, this Court held as follows: "22. With regard to the question as to whether the seniority of a lecturer can be confined only to Section 4(2) of the 2011 Act read with the Schedule vis-à-vis Section 3(2) read with Section 4(1) of the 2011 Act, a reading of Section 4(2) and the Schedule would go to show that the seniority of lecturers would only be in relation to another lecturer of the same category. However, for the purpose of provincialisation of a lecturer, the subject which the lecturer is teaching has to have concurrence given by the State Government as reflected in Section 3(2) read with Section 4(1) of the 2011 Act." 29. From the aforesaid paragraphs of Md. Amjad Ali (supra), it becomes clear that the Court had recorded a finding that a teaching staff would become eligible for provincialisation only after seven years from the date +2 concurrence was given by the State Government and that an employee of a venture educational institution, for the purpose of provincialisation of his service, has to have his seniority counted from the date the concurrence was given by the State Government to the subject he was teaching. In the instant case also, arguments have been advanced on the Government concurrence for '+2 stage'. It is on the basis of grant of Government concurrence for '+2 stage', the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that Government concurrence in respect of Advance Assamese, the subject taught by the petitioner, having been accorded on 17.02.2003 and that in respect of subjects of Logic & Philosophy and Sociology on 31.11.2010, the service of the petitioner is required to be provincialised and that respondent Nos. 6 and 7 do not even fulfil the criteria for provincialisation. 30. The judgment, in Md. Amjad Ali (supra), was rendered in the case of a junior college. The present petition is also in respect of a junior college. The observations and findings of the Court in Md. Amjad Ali (supra), quoted herein above, go to show that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. Amjad Ali (supra), was rendered in the case of a junior college. The present petition is also in respect of a junior college. The observations and findings of the Court in Md. Amjad Ali (supra), quoted herein above, go to show that the issue raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. 31. Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have not been able to show as to why this Court should take a different view in the matter. 32. In view of the above discussions, respondent Nos. 6 and 7 are not entitled to have their services provincialised before completion of seven years from 30.11.2010, i.e., the date of grant of Government concurrence for '+2 stage'. The respondent authorities are directed to provincialise the service of the petitioner in accordance with law. As, admittedly, respondent No. 7 is senior to the respondent No. 6, after completion of seven years from the date of '+2 stage' concurrence, the respondent authorities will provincialise the service of respondent No. 7. 33. As this case is decided on the basis of the judgment rendered in the case of Md. Amjad Ali (supra), the question raised by the petitioner as to whether in absence of any permission granted by the Council in respect of the subjects in question, any appointment could have been made by the school authority favouring the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 is not gone into as the said question has, in the context of the case, become academic. 34. Writ petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs.