Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 454 (GAU)

Alokesh Chandra Ray v. State of Assam

2025-03-17

KARDAK ETE

body2025
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. M.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P.N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel for the Elementary Education Department and Ms. D.D. Barman, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate for the respondent no.3 in WP(C) 3597/2021 and WP(C) 527/2022. 2. By filing these writ petitions, the writ petitioners have prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to provincialize the service of the petitioners as Hindi (Language) teachers in their respective schools in terms of Section 3(1)(xi) of the Assam Education (Provincialization of Services of Teachers and Re-Organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 as well as the Schedule appended to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The petitioners have also prayed for providing service benefits w.e.f. 05.02.2021 as provided to the other teachers provincialised under the aforesaid Act, 2017. 3. Since the grievance raised by the writ petitioners in these bunch of writ petitions are similar in facts and law, same have been heard analogously and are being dispose of by this common judgment and order. 4. The case projected by the petitioners is that they were appointed ranging from the year 1983 to 2010 as Hindi Teachers in various Upper-Primary (M.E schools/madrassa) which were established as venture schools in the Dhubri, Goalpara, Bongaigaon, Kokrajhar, Kamrup, Chirang, Nalbari and Barpeta districts of Assam. They have been serving continuously for more than 20 years and some of the petitioners are at the verge of retirement. The petitioners have been working sincerely without any fixed pay with the hope that their services would be provincialized in due course. The petitioners possess the required qualification for provincialization under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Assam Education (Provincialization of Services of Teachers and Re-Organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (herein after referred to as Assam Education Provincialization Act, 2017 in short). 5. Pursuant to the enactment of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 with a view to provide free and compulsory primary education to all children between the age group of 6-14 years, the State of Assam has enacted the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 for provincialization of services of the employees of the venture educational institutions in the State. Under the said Act, a large number of venture M.E schools in Assam were provincialized and the employees have got the benefits of provincialization. Under the said Act, a large number of venture M.E schools in Assam were provincialized and the employees have got the benefits of provincialization. Under the said Act, a large number of venture M.E Schools in the State of Assam were provincialized and the employees have been given the benefits of provincialization and the post of Hindi Teachers in all the Upper Primary Schools were provincialized under the Act of 2011. 6. Vide judgment and order dated 23.09.2016 passed in WP(C) No. 3190/2012, the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 has been struck down being unconstitutional. Thereafter, the State has enacted the Assam Education Provincialization Act, 2017 to provincialise the services of the teachers of the Venture Educational Institutions and to re-organise and streamline the educational institutions up to the degree level in the State of Assam, so as to confirm to the prevailing statutory norms and standards. 7. It is the contention of the petitioners that despite having eligible to be provincialized of their services, the case of the petitioners have not been considered whereas, other similarly situated teachers have been provincialized. It is contended that some of the case of the petitioners have been forwarded after scrutiny and verification by the District Scrutiny Committee (DSC) to the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, in terms of Section 13(7) of the Assam Provincialization Act, 2017 as Hindi teachers. 8. Mr. M.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the State Government has provincialized numbers of schools in the State of Assam in terms of the Assam Education Provincialisation Act, 2017, which was uploaded on 04.02.2021. It is found that the schools of the petitioners have been provincialized whereas, the service of other teachers as forwarded by the District Scrutiny Committee (DSC) were provincialized except the post of Hindi (Language) teacher, thereby illegally depriving the petitioners. He submits that in some of the cases, service of Assamese language teachers were provincialized while the Hindi Language Teachers have been ignored. 9. Mr. Laskar, learned counsel, submits that the action of the respondent authorities in not provincializing the posts of Hindi (Language) teacher is a gross violation of section 3(1)(xi) of the Assam Education Provincialization Act, 2017 as well as the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. 9. Mr. Laskar, learned counsel, submits that the action of the respondent authorities in not provincializing the posts of Hindi (Language) teacher is a gross violation of section 3(1)(xi) of the Assam Education Provincialization Act, 2017 as well as the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. He submits that as per scheme of the above Acts, at least one teacher for languages must be appointed in every upper primary schools. The State legislature, on its wisdom, has used the word "Languages" instead of "Language" which means that they were aware about different languages taught in Upper Primary/M.E Schools. A literal and constructive interpretation of the provision would mean that there must be at least one teacher for each language. 10. He submits that in the State of Assam in all the upper primary schools, Hindi being a national language, is compulsorily taught and the said subject cannot be taught by anyone else without having requisite qualification in Hindi and therefore, not provincializing the Hindi (Language) teachers like the petitioners, the sufferer would be the students as they would be deprived from learning the compulsory Hindi subject, which is fortified by the letter of Director of Elementary Education vide dated 09.12.2019 to the Government. 11. Mr. Laskar, learned counsel, submits that the petitioners have put in maximum years of their life teaching their students without getting any service benefits with the sole hope that their selfless service would be given due recognition in due course by provincializing their services. He submits that some of them have almost reached the age of retirement. Therefore, non- provincialization of the service of the petitioners would be violating the right to life with dignity as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Therefore, he submits that the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the case of the petitioners and to provincialised the service of the petitioners as Hindi (Language) teachers in terms of the Assam Education Provincialization Act, 2017 as well as the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. 12. Mr. P.N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department, submits that as per the report of District Scrutiny Committee of Dhubri district, the names of 50 petitioners were not recommended by the District Scrutiny Committee for provincialization of their services in terms of the Assam Education Provincialization Act, 2017. 12. Mr. P.N. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department, submits that as per the report of District Scrutiny Committee of Dhubri district, the names of 50 petitioners were not recommended by the District Scrutiny Committee for provincialization of their services in terms of the Assam Education Provincialization Act, 2017. However, the names of the 10 petitioners were recommended but the State Level Scrutiny Committee could not recommend their names for provincialization as Tutors as they did not fulfill enrollment criteria as laid down in the Assam Education Provincialization Act, 2017. He submits that since the provincialization of the services of the petitioners under the Assam Education Provincialization Act, 2017, could not be considered due to non-fulfillment of enrollment criteria, the petitioners have no right to claim for provincialisation and as such, writ petition may be dismissed. 13. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 14. The grievances of the petitioners are for provincialization of their services as a Hindi (Language) teachers in their provincialized respective Upper Primary schools in terms of the Assam Education Provincialization Act, 2017 as well as the provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Admittedly, the petitioners are Hindi (Language) teachers who have been appointed in the various schools in the districts of Dhubri, Goalpara, Bongaigaon, Kokrajhar, Kamrup, Chirang, Nalbari and Barpeta. The petitioners’ appointment ranges from 1983 to 2010. Records reveal that the schools where the petitioners have been serving are provincialized. 15. Having considered the specific prayer of the petitioners for a direction to the respondent authorities to provincialised their services in terms of Section 3(1)(xi) of the Assam Education Provincialization Act, 2017 as well as the Schedule appended to the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, I deem it appropriate to refer to the said provisions, which are reproduced herein below:- “3. Eligibility criteria for selection of educational institution for provincialisation of services of teachers/tutors:- (1) Subject to the provisions of Article 30 of the Constitution of India, the following categories of Venture Educational Institutions shall be eligible for being considered for provincialisation of the services of their teachers and tutors:- (xi) 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: Provided that for additional posts it shall be considered in accordance with the norms and standard stipulated in the Schedule under Sections 19 and 25 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Central Act No. 35 of 2009)” 16. Bare perusal of the above provisions shows that for Venture Upper Primary School there shall be a minimum of three teachers or tutors at least one teacher each for Science and Mathematics, Social Studies and Languages and for additional posts it shall be considered in accordance with the norms and standards stipulated in the Schedule under Sections 19 and 25 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Thus, it is clear that for each Venture Upper Primary School there shall be minimum three teachers or tutors at least one teacher each for Science and Mathematics, Social Studies and Languages. 17. On consideration of the above provision, it is seen that there may a scope for additional teachers. However, such additional posts shall be considered in accordance with the norms and standard as per the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. 18. Having considered that the provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, is not an issue to be considered, this Court refrains from referring the said provisions as the same would be of no avail. 19. It is stated at the Bar that the post of Language teachers have already been filled up in the venture upper primary schools, there may not be any possibility of appointing more language teachers. 19. It is stated at the Bar that the post of Language teachers have already been filled up in the venture upper primary schools, there may not be any possibility of appointing more language teachers. However, as noted above, the provisions of Section 3(1)(xi) of the Assam Education Provincialization Act, 2017, provides for a scope of additional post as the same provides that there shall be a minimum three teachers or tutors at least one teacher each for each of the subject and out of the three subjects including the languages, I am of the view that the respondent authorities may reconsider the case of the petitioners, as the provisions provides for a scope to provincialized additional teachers as per the standards stipulated in the schedule under Sections 19 and 25 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, as it appears that no consideration has been made in that direction. 20. Having considered above, I am of the view that the respondent authorities may reconsider the case of the petitioners taking into account the provisions of Section 3(1)(xi) of the Assam Education Provincialization Act, 2017. However, such view should not be construed as a mandamus to provincialised the services of the petitioners. 21. In view of discussion and observations made herein above, the present writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to reconsider the case of the petitioners in terms of the provisions of Section 3(1)(xi) of the Assam Education Provincialization Act, 2017. 22. The petitioners are directed to file their individual representation before the appropriate authority within a period of 20(twenty) days from today. On receipt of the representation that may be filed by the petitioners as directed herein above, the respondent authorities shall consider the case of the petitioners individually within a period of 4(four) months thereafter. 23. In terms of above directions and observations, the present writ petitions are disposed of. No order as to costs.