provincialisation of service and that the said District Scrutiny Committee had recommended the name of the petitioner along with other two teachers/ tutors and that the name of the respondent no. 7 appeared in the list of tutors not found eligible. Upon publication of the list on website, the respondent no. 7 claims to have made a complaint on not finding his name in the list of eligible tutors. It is claimed that the respondent no. 2 had directed the respondent no. 3 to submit authenticated proposal. It is projected that the respondent no. 3 had submitted the authenticated proposal wherein the name of the respondent no. 7 was included as Headmaster cum Language Teacher and accordingly, the name of the respondent no. 7 was recommended as eligible teacher/ tutor as Headmaster cum Language Teacher by District Scrutiny Committee, Dhubri. It is claimed that the name of the petitioner appeared at serial no. 4 as second language teacher, but as provincialisation of only one language teacher was to be made, the name of the petitioner was dropped as per the provisions of Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 2017, the name of the petitioner was dropped from the authenticated list. The learned counsel for the respondent no. 7 has submitted that material facts has been suppressed by the petitioner to obtain the stay of the provincialisation of service of the respondent no. 7 and as such he prays for modification of the order dated 25.03.2021 passed in this writ petition.
