JUDGMENT Heard Mr. D.S. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.N. Sharma, learned standing counsel, Education (Elementary) Department, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2; Mr. P. Nayak, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos.3—5 and Mr. S.C. Pandit, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6 and 7. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Dharani Chandra Brahma has prayed for issuing direction to the respondent authorities to provincialize his service as tutor in the Bodofa Upendra Nath Brahma M.E. School, District-Baksa as per rules enacted by the Government of Assam and alternatively also prayed for issuing direction to the State respondents to dispose of the representation pending before the respondents by examining the matter related to this writ petition. 3. The background facts leading to filing of the present petition, is briefly stated as under:- ?The petitioner was appointed by the School Management Committee of Bodofa Upendra Nath Brahma M.E. School, which was provincialized on 04.02.2021. The petitioner was appointed in the said school by the School Management Committee, vide order dated 29.12.1992 (Annexure-'A') and the petitioner had joined on 01.01.1993 and submitted his joining report (Annexure-=B‘). The name of the petitioner finds mention in the DISE code of the said School for the year 2009 – 2010, as the 2 nd senior-most Assistant Teacher and prior to that the Block Elementary Education Officer, Tihu, Barama, had inspected the School on 27.08.1999 and prepared an inspection report (Annexure-'C'), wherein also the name of the petitioner finds mention as 2 nd senior-most Assistant Teacher of the School. Thereafter, a list was prepared for provincialization of the said School and its employees under the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2011) by the District Scrutiny Committee and in the format prepared by the District Scrutiny Committee also the name of the petitioner appeared as 2 nd senior-most employee at Sl. No.46 and the DISE code of the School also find mention in the said report and the DISE Code No.0706102 and the list indicates that the petitioner was teaching in the said School w.e.f. 01.01.1993 and the copy of the format prepared by the District Scrutiny Committee is enclosed with the petition as Annexure-=D‘. No.46 and the DISE code of the School also find mention in the said report and the DISE Code No.0706102 and the list indicates that the petitioner was teaching in the said School w.e.f. 01.01.1993 and the copy of the format prepared by the District Scrutiny Committee is enclosed with the petition as Annexure-=D‘. Thereafter, another list was prepared for provincialization of the venture M.E. Schools under the said Act of 2011 and pursuant to the Act of 2011, the Government had issued the letter dated 15.09.2012 and there also his name was shown as the 2 nd senior-most Assistant Teacher and the said recommendation is enclosed with the petition as Annexure- =E‘. But, the services of the employees serving in the aforementioned school were not provincialized due to non-fulfillment of certain criteria. Thereafter, new Act i.e. The Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-Organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2017) of the Bodofa Upendra Nath Brahma M.E. School was provincialized on 04.02.2021 and the services of the employees were provincialized. However, the name of the petitioner, who was the 2 nd senior-most Assistant Teacher in the said M.E. School and who was teaching Social Science since the date of his joining on 01.01.1993, find no mention in the said provincialisation list and the said list is enclosed with the petition as Annexure -=F‘ and instead the name of respondent No.6 Shri Narad Chandra Brahma had appeared in the said provincialisation list at Sl. No.30, who was the 3 rd senior-most Assistant Teacher under the Act of 2011 and in the report of the District Scrutiny Committee, the name of the petitioner was shown as the 2 nd senior-most Assistant Teacher and his subject was shown as Social Science and the said format of the report of the District Scrutiny Committee is annexed with the petition as Annexure-=G‘. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that the respondent No.7, in connivance with the respondent No.6, had illegally dropped the name of the petitioner while preparing the provincialisation list of the said M.E. School and the said list was prepared secretly. Further case of the petitioner is that the service of Shri Narad Chandra Brahma has been pronvincialised as a Tutor to teach Social Science, but he was teaching Bodo language. Further case of the petitioner is that the service of Shri Narad Chandra Brahma has been pronvincialised as a Tutor to teach Social Science, but he was teaching Bodo language. And the petitioner has been teaching Social Science since 01.01.1993 and by adopting malpractice the service of Mr. Narad Chandra Brahma was provincialized. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred several representations to the member of the District Scrutiny Committee on 25.02.2021 and 01.03.2021, but the same failed to yield any result and that non-inclusion of the name of the petitioner as per the Act of 2017, in the list published by the State Government inspite of his name included in the earlier list, as per the Act of 2011, is a violation of law as well as principle of nature justice. It is also the pleaded case of the petitioner that he had also preferred one representation to the Director of Elementary Education on 25.02.2021 and the said representation has not yet been disposed of. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition with the aforementioned prayer.? 4. The respondent Nos.6 and 7 filed their affidavit denying the averments made in the petition and the respondent Nos.2 and 8 also filed their affidavit-in-opposition and thereafter, the respondent Nos.6 and 7 also filed their additional affidavit-in-opposition. 5. Mr. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 2017, provides that in respect of M.E. School the services of at least one teacher each in language, social science and science/mathematics are to be provincialized and since the date of his joining on 01.01.1993, the petitioner has been teaching Social Science and as such, he has the legal right to be provincialized and his name also appeared at Sl. No.2 in the report (Annexure-C) prepared by the Block Elementary Education Officer and also as the 2 nd senior-most Assistant Teacher in the format prepared by the District Scrutiny Committee under the Act of 2011 and in the list dated 15.09.2012, also his name appeared at Sl. No.2. 5.1. But, Mr. No.2 in the report (Annexure-C) prepared by the Block Elementary Education Officer and also as the 2 nd senior-most Assistant Teacher in the format prepared by the District Scrutiny Committee under the Act of 2011 and in the list dated 15.09.2012, also his name appeared at Sl. No.2. 5.1. But, Mr. Deka further submits, in the year 2021, while the School was provincialized and the services of the employees were also provincialized, without the knowledge of the petitioner, his name was dropped and instead the name of the respondent No.6, who was the 3 rd senior-most Assistant Teacher against the DISE code captured for the year 2009-2010, against the said School and who was teaching Bodo language, has been provincialized and that the State Level Scrutiny Committee has overlooked the said aspect. 5.2. Further, Mr. Deka submits that the petitioner has submitted several representations to the State Level Scrutiny Committee and also to the Director of Elementary Education and the Deputy Commissioner, but the same failed to yield any result and that the right of the petitioner is violated and as such, Mr. Deka submits that this petition may be allowed directing the State respondents to provincialize the service of the petitioner. 6. Per contra, Mr. Pandit, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6, and 7 submits that the petitioner was irregular in attending the school and he remained absent in most of the time and the School Management Committee had taken a decision to recommend the name of the respondent No.6 in place of the petitioner, and that the respondent No.6 will be retiring in the month of July, 2025 and the petitioner and the respondent No.6 joined in the School on the same date and being the senior in respect of age, the respondent No.6 is entitled to be recommended for the post of Assistant Teacher and though his service was provincialized in the year 2021, yet, vide order of this Court dated 24.08.2021, the same was stayed and the respondent Nos.6 and 7 has been suffering a lot and under such circumstances, Mr. Pandit has contended to dismiss the petition. 6.1. In support of his submission, Mr. Pandit has referred to the following decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court: (i) Sudama Singh v. Nath Saran Singh & Ors. Pandit has contended to dismiss the petition. 6.1. In support of his submission, Mr. Pandit has referred to the following decisions of Hon‘ble Supreme Court as well as of this Court: (i) Sudama Singh v. Nath Saran Singh & Ors. , reported in (1988) 1 SCC 57 (ii) Baharul Islam v. State of Assam & Ors. , reported in 2003 (2) GLT 482 (iii) Sahidur Islam v. State of Assam & Ors. , reported in 2022 (2) GLT 620 ; and (iv) Shri Kishore Kumar Deka v. State of Assam & Ors. [WA 28/2019, decided on 04.03.2021] 7. On the other hand, Mr. Sharma, learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 submits that the respondent Nos.6 and 7 have no qualification for being appointed as teacher as per Section 2 of the Act of 2017 and as such, their services were provincialized as tutor only and that the State Level Committee has acted upon the recommendation of the District Scrutiny Committee. However, to a pointed query of this Court, it is admitted by the learned standing counsel for the respondent authorities that the School Managing Committee has no authority to downgrade the petitioner from Sl.No.2 to Sl.No.3. 8. Having heard the submission of learned Advocates of both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and also the documents placed on record and also perused the case laws referred by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6 and 7. 9. That, a careful perusal of Section 2(zc) of the Act of 2017, provides that "Venture Upper Primary School" means a School imparting education from class VI up to class VIII and established by the people of the locality prior to 1.1.2006, which has received recognition from the competent authority on or before 1.1.2006, and captured in the DISE Code up to 2009-10, and whereof the services of the teachers have not been provincialised under any Act enacted by the State Legislature so far. 10. And Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act of 2017, provides that in case of Venture Upper Primary School there shall be minimum three teachers or tutors at least one teacher each for (a) Science and Mathematics, (b) Social Studies, and (c) Languages. 11. 10. And Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act of 2017, provides that in case of Venture Upper Primary School there shall be minimum three teachers or tutors at least one teacher each for (a) Science and Mathematics, (b) Social Studies, and (c) Languages. 11. Now, adverting to the facts herein this case, I find from the various documents enclosed with the petition that the present petitioner has been teaching social science since the date of his appointment on 01.01.1993. Mr. Deka, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has rightly pointed out and I find substance in the same. On the other hand, the respondent No.6 has been provincialized as language teacher, who used to teach Bodo language. Further, it appears that the service of the respondent No.7 has been provincialized as the teacher of English language and apparently there appears to be two teachers in language – one is in English and the other is in Bodo language. But, Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 2017, mandates that one teacher of Social Science shall be provincialized. And having not provincialised the service of the petitioner as social science teacher, the respondent authorities had violated the mandate of Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 2017. 12. Further, it appears from the documents (Annexure-C, D and E) that the name of the petitioner appears at Sl.No.2. But, while the process for regularization was made under the Act of 2017, in the year 2021, the name of the petitioner was dropped from Sl.No.2 to Sl.No.3 and the same has admittedly been done by the School Management Committee, who admittedly had no authority to drop the name of the petitioner and the same also appears to be done behind the back of the petitioner. 13. Though a stand has been taken that the petitioner was irregular in attending the School and for which his name was dropped to 3 rd position and there is no legal framework to control the School Management Committee of a venture upper primary school, yet, in such void, the principle of natural justice will come into play. But, the same had not been complied with by affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The District Scrutiny Committee also failed to address the grievance of the petitioner. 14. But, the same had not been complied with by affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The District Scrutiny Committee also failed to address the grievance of the petitioner. 14. In that view of the matter, provincialisation of the service of the respondent No.6 in place of the petitioner and upgrading him to the position of second senior most teacher, negating the legitimate claim of the petitioner is arbitrary and illegal and the same fails to withstand the legal scrutiny. 15. Though Mr. Pandit, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6 and 7 submits that the respondent No.6 is senior in age than the petitioner, though they have joined on the same date and on such count, he is entitled to be recommended, yet, the said submission of Mr. Pandit left this Court unimpressed in as much as, since the year 1993 the petitioner was in the 2 nd position and dropping his name from the said position behind his back and recommending the name of respondent Nos.6 and 7, is certainly arbitrary. And as such, the same cannot be allowed to stand. 16. I have carefully gone through the decisions referred by Mr. Pandit, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.6 and 7. There is no quarrel at the bar about the proposition of law laid down in the said cases. But, in the given facts and circumstances of the case in hand, the same are not applicable in all force. 17. Though Mr. Pandit submits that the petitioner was irregular in attending the school and he was on leave on several occasions, yet it appears that the same was not unauthorized absence inviting any legal consequence. And as such, the said absence cannot be a ground to drop his name by the School Management Committee. 18. Since the service of the respondent No.6 has already been provincialised and since he will be retiring in the month of July, 2025, it would be unjust to set aside his provincilisation, at fag end of the career by exercising writ jurisdiction which is by and large an equitable and discretionary jurisdiction in view of the jurisprudence developed by the Courts over the years, which accords significance to the role of justice and equity in the exercise of writ jurisdiction. 19. 19. It is well settled that the jurisdiction of the High Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. [ See K.D. Sharma v. SAIL reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481], and is to be exercised to reach injustice wherever it is found. (See- Secy., ONGC Ltd. v. V.U. Warrier reported in 2005 (5) SCC 245). The writs referred to in Article 226 of the Constitution are intended to be issued in grave cases where such act, omission, error, or excess has resulted in manifest injustice. (See-Veerappa Pillai v. Raman & Raman Ltd. reported in 1952 SCR 583 ) . Though no limits can be placed upon its discretion, the High Court must exercise its power along recognised lines, and not arbitrarily. One of the limitations imposed by courts on themselves is that they will not exercise jurisdiction unless substantial injustice has ensued, or is likely to ensue. They will not exercise jurisdiction to set right mere errors of law which do not occasion injustice in a broad and general sense. [See- Sangram Singh v. Election Commissioner, Kotah & Anr., reported in [1955] 2 SCR 1)]. 20. Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind, this court is not inclined to set aside provincialisation of service of the respondent No.6, though he was upgraded to second senior most teacher of the School, in place of the petitioner by exercising the equitable jurisdiction of this court as it would cause manifest injustice to him at the end of his service carrier. 21. Since Section 3 (1) (xi) of the Act of 2017, provides that in case of Venture Upper Primary School there shall be minimum three teachers/tutors, and since the mandate of the said Section has been not taken into account by the respondent authorities, while provincialisation of the school and services of the teachers/tutors, by a mandamus of this Court, the respondent authorities, specially No.2, i.e. Director, Elementary Education, Assam is directed to provincialise the service of the petitioner as Social Science teacher/tutor, for whatever position he is entitled to, as per his qualification, with effect from the date, from which the school was provincialised as the second senior most teacher of the said school. Further it is provided that the respondent No.6 shall be reverted to his original position as 3 rd senior most teacher/tutor of the said school, without, however, disturbing provincialisation of his service. 22. In the result, I find sufficient merit in this petition and accordingly, the same stands allowed to the extent indicated above. The exercise, indicated herein above, shall be carried out within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this judgment and place the same before the respondent authority, within a period of one week from today. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. The parties have to bear their own costs.