Masuma Khatun vs State Of Assam And Ors

Heard Mr. R Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. N Sarma, learned counsel for the Secondary Education Department and Mr. Z

Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. Mr. K Nayak, learned counsel appears for the respondent No.3. None appears for the respondent

No.6.

The petitioner by way of the present writ petition has challenged the list published on 28.01.2015 in the website of the Secondary Education

Department, Assam, for the purpose of provincialisation of services of employees in respect of Hatsingimari Junior College under the Dhubri district.

Petitioner’s counsel submits that the said impugned list dated 28.01.2015 had been published in pursuance to the Assam Venture Educational

Institutional Provincialisation of Services Act, 2011 which had been set aside by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chandan Kumar Neog

â€"vs- State of Assam & Ors. , reported in 2016 (5) GLT 296.

The petitioner’s counsel submits that in view of the above, the impugned list dated 28.01.2015, in so far as it relates to the respondent No.6, should

be set aside and a direction be issued to the respondent authorities to consider provincialisation of the petitioner in terms of the Assam Educational

(Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017, hereinafter referred to as ‘2017 Act’.

Counsels for the respondents do not have any objection to the same. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. The petitioner herein is a

Lecturer of Advance Assamese, while the respondent No. 6 is a Lecturer in History, in Hatsinghimari Junior College, Dhubri district. The impugned

list dated 28.01.2015, which had been issued by the State respondents for provincialisation of services of one ofthe employees of the said college, had

reflected at Serial No.2012 of the list, that there was a Court case pending, which was WP ( C) No. 5348 of 2014. WP ( C) No. 5348 of 2014, which

was filed by the respondent No. 6 had been closed as infructuous vide order dated 02.02.2015.

Added to the above, in view of the Assam Venture Educational Institutional Provincialisation of Services Act, 2011 having been struck down by the

Division Bench of this Court in Chandan Kumar Neog (supra), it is clear that the consideration for provincialisation of the petitioner or the respondent

No.6 would have to be done as per the 2017 Act which has replaced the earlier Act.

In view of above, impugned list dated 28.01.2015 is set aside to the extent that it is relatable to the respondent No.6. Consequently, the State

respondents are directed to consider the provincialisation of the services of the petitioner, the respondent No.6 and all other eligible candidates as per

2017 Act. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.