ORDER : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr. I.H. Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. R. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the Secondary Education Department, Govt. of Assam and Ms. T. Som, learned counsel for respondent no. 5. 2. Matter relates to provincialisation of service of Science teacher. 3. Both petitioner and respondent no. 5 are Science teachers serving in the Ketekibari High School in the district of Karmrup (Rural). Ketekibari High School (school hereinafter) is a venture educational institution and is now being considered for provincialisation as per provisions contained in the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011. 4. From the materials placed on record, it is seen that there are three Science teachers in the school, namely, Haren Das, Dhanjit Kalita (petitioner) and Dilip Chandra Haloi (respondent no. 5). In so far Haren Das is concerned, there is no dispute regarding his seniority as well as eligibility, he having joined the school on 20.09.1993. In so far petitioner is concerned, he joined the school on 01.07.2003 whereas respondent no. 5 joined the school later than him on 23.02.2006. While petitioner has the subject combination of Mathematics, Chemistry and Geology in graduation, respondent No. 5 has the subject combination of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. When the matter was placed before the District Scrutiny Committee, Kamrup, District Scrutiny Committee recommended respondent no. 5 in addition to Haren Das for provincialisation of service as Science teacher. Petitioner was not recommended for provincialisation with the remark that his was a case of excess appointment. 5. It is at this stage that petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 6. This Court vide order dated 27.02.2015, had issued notice and passed an interim order to the effect that service of respondent no. 5 as Assistant Teacher (Science) in the school should not be provincialised. 7. Petitioner has filed an additional affidavit to place on record copy of the Government Office Memorandum (OM) dated 07.05.2014 which clarifies as to how recruitment of Science teacher is to be made. Besides, petitioner has also placed on record mark-sheet of his B.Sc. examination to show that he had Mathematics as a subject in graduation. 8. Education (Secondary) Department has filed an affidavit. It is stated that petitioner had joined the school on 01.07.2003 when appointment was made by the School Managing Committee. On the other hand, respondent no. Besides, petitioner has also placed on record mark-sheet of his B.Sc. examination to show that he had Mathematics as a subject in graduation. 8. Education (Secondary) Department has filed an affidavit. It is stated that petitioner had joined the school on 01.07.2003 when appointment was made by the School Managing Committee. On the other hand, respondent no. 5 had joined the school on 12.03.2006. While admitting that respondent no. 5 is junior to the petitioner considering the dates of joining, it is, however, stated that in case of Science teachers, one should have Physics, Chemistry and Biology as subject combination in graduation and the other should have Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics. Without recommendation of the District Scrutiny Committee, no service of a teacher can be provincialised under the Assam Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 (Provincialisation Act hereinafter). 9. Respondent No. 5 in his affidavit has highlighted the fact that he is a Science graduate having "royal'' combination of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics whereas petitioner, though a Science graduate, has the subject combination of Mathematics, Botany and Geology. It is contended that it is incumbent for a Science teacher to take classes in Physics and Chemistry and, therefore, one having subject combination of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics would be considered for provincialisation. Respondent No. 5 having the said combination, has been rightly recommended by the District Scrutiny Committee. 10. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties are on pleaded lines. Therefore, a detailed reference to the submissions so made is considered not necessary. However, submissions made have been considered. 11. As noticed above, matter relating to provincialisation of venture educational institution is covered by the Provincialisation Act. Effect of provincialisation would be that teaching and non-teaching staff of the provincialised institution would be deemed to have become employees of the State Government and consequently entitled to all the benefits as State Government employees. 12. Section 4(2) of the Provincialisation Act mentions that number of employees, teaching as well as non-teaching, in each venture educational institution provincialised or to be provincialised shall not exceed the number as given in the Schedule appended to the Provincialisation Act. 12. Section 4(2) of the Provincialisation Act mentions that number of employees, teaching as well as non-teaching, in each venture educational institution provincialised or to be provincialised shall not exceed the number as given in the Schedule appended to the Provincialisation Act. As per the first proviso, where the number of employees serving in the venture educational institution exceeds the number specified in the Schedule, provincialisation of the services of the employees shall be on the basis of seniority in the respective category in the concerned educational institution. In so far excess employees are concerned, State Government would have no liability whatsoever. 13. The Schedule to the Provincialisation Act provides that in respect of a High School having up-to four sections, there shall be two Assistant Teacher (Science). 14. Section 10 of the Provincialisation Act lays down the modalities leading to provincialisation of a venture educational institution. It provides for a three tier system of scrutiny. At the bottom of the hierarchy is the District Scrutiny Committee, in the middle is the concerned Director and the final authority is the State Government in the concerned department. District Scrutiny Committee is required to be constituted in each district separately for Elementary, Secondary and Higher education to scrutinise the service records and other related issues of the serving teaching and non-teaching staff of venture educational institution pertaining to provincialisation of their services. District Scrutiny Committees are required to be constituted by the concerned Deputy Commissioner. The mandate of District Scrutiny Committee as can be seen from Sub-Section (3) of Section 10 is to first scrutinise and prepare a list of venture educational institutions within the district eligible for provincialisation and thereafter to scrutinise and verify the service record of all the serving employees eligible for provincialisation. Once this process is complete, District Scrutiny Committee shall forward the verified list of eligible teaching and non-teaching staff school-wise in accordance with the number of positions specified in the Schedule to the concerned Director. On receipt of the verified list, Director shall make further scrutiny as may be required and thereafter forward the same to the concerned department of the State Government for consideration and issuance of notification. The ultimate stage of scrutiny and final decision rests with the concerned department of the State Government. 15. On receipt of the verified list, Director shall make further scrutiny as may be required and thereafter forward the same to the concerned department of the State Government for consideration and issuance of notification. The ultimate stage of scrutiny and final decision rests with the concerned department of the State Government. 15. As can be seen from the factual matrix of the case, stage-I of the scrutiny is over and the matter is now before the Director of Secondary Education. 16. First proviso to Sub-Section (2) of Section 4 of the Provincialisation Act clarifies that if number of competing employees is more than the posts specified in the Schedule, provincialisation will take place on the basis of seniority in the respective category. Therefore, seniority in the respective category is a crucial determinant for provincialisation. For example, if there are five numbers of Science teacher in a venture High School which is being considered for provincialisation, there will be short-listing on the basis of their seniority since only two posts of Science teacher are earmarked for such a school. Having said that, it has to be borne in mind that the subject of Science at the High School level encompasses a host of sub-subjects which includes Mathematics, Chemistry, Physics, Biology, etc. This had created some confusion while making recommendation for provincialisation. To clarify the matter, Government in the Secondary Education Department had issued OM dated 07.05.2014. It has been clarified in the OM that one of the Science teacher should be a Science graduate with the subject combination of either Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics or Economics, Statistics and Mathematics or any combination having Mathematics. Therefore, from a careful reading of the OM dated 07.05.2014, what is discernible is that out of the two Science teachers, one should have a subject combination of Physics, Chemistry and Biology and the other should have a subject combination of either Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics or Economics, Statistics and Mathematics or any combination having Mathematics. Thus for the second post, it is essential to have the subject of Mathematics in graduation. 17. Keeping this aspect in my mind, the scrutiny carried out by the District Scrutiny Committee in respect of the petitioner and respondent no. 5 may now be examined. 18. Thus for the second post, it is essential to have the subject of Mathematics in graduation. 17. Keeping this aspect in my mind, the scrutiny carried out by the District Scrutiny Committee in respect of the petitioner and respondent no. 5 may now be examined. 18. Respondent No. 5 has been recommended on the ground that he has the "royal" subject combination of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics and in so far petitioner is concerned, he has been shown to be an excess teacher though there is no dispute regarding seniority of the petitioner. 19. The OM dated 07.05.2014 as noticed above, does not give any additional weightage to a Science teacher having the subject combination of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics though it specifically provides that one of the Science teachers should have the subject combination of Physics, Chemistry and Biology. For the second post, a Science teacher having subject combination of Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics is placed at par with a Science teacher having another subject combination provided one of the subjects is Mathematics. If the two competing Science teachers are at par, then certainly, one who is senior cannot be overlooked having regard to the mandate of the first proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Provincialisation Act. In so far petitioner is concerned, he has Mathematics as one of the subjects in graduation; his seniority over respondent No. 5 being not in dispute. That being the position, it is quite evident that the District Scrutiny Committee had made an error in recommending respondent no. 5 for provincialisation by overlooking the case of the petitioner which requires to be rectified. 20. Since the matter is now before the Director of Secondary Education for the second stage of scrutiny as visualised by the scheme of Section 10(4) of the Provincialisation Act, who is also empowered to make further scrutiny before forwarding the verified list of eligible teaching as well as non-teaching staff to the Government, this Court directs respondent no. 2, i.e. Director of Secondary Education, Assam, to do the needful having regard to the discussions made in this order and thereafter forward the verified list of teaching and non-teaching staff of the school to the Government for consideration and for issuance of provincialisation notification. This shall be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. This shall be done within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Interim order passed by this Court on 27.02.2015 would stand merged with this order. 21. Writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.