Dismissed

The State of Assam and 2 Ors. v. Salek Ahmed and 19 Ors.

Gauhati HC1 Jun 2026WA/334/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

State appealed against a Single Judge order setting aside rejection of teachers' provincialization claims based on DISE Code 2011-12. The Division Bench held that criterion and the Joint Committee's role were extrastatutory under the Assam Education Act, 2017, found no patent illegality in the Single Judge's order, and dismissed the writ appeal.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; Single Judge's order dated 04.12.2023 affirming consideration by SLSC in accordance with the Act, 2017, upheld.

The State of Assam and 2 Ors. Vs Salek Ahmed and 19… — Education and Admissions | Gauhati HC (2026)

Page No.# 1/10

GAHC010013912025

undefined

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WA/334/2025

¶6

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 2 ORS.

¶7

REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DISPUR GUWAHATI-6

¶8

2: THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTRY EUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019.

¶9

3: THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER SRIBHUMI ASSAM

¶10

VERSUS

¶11

SALEK AHMED AND 19 ORS.

¶12

SON OF MATASIM ALI, R/O VILLAGE KESHARKAPON, PO DHARAKUNA, DISTRICT KARIMGANJ, ASSAM, PIN-788712

¶13

2:TAHER AHMED TALUKDAR S/O. NURUL HOQUE TALUKDAR R/O. VILL.- AND P/O. RATABARI DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM.

¶14

3:AMRUL HAQUE S/O. ABDUL MATLIB R/O. VILL.- ATANAGAR P/O. BAZARGHAT DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788733.

¶15

4:SAHINUL ISLAM BARBHUIYA

¶16

Page No.# 2/10

¶17

S/O. RAHMAT ALI BARBHUIYA R/O. VILL.- GARMURA P/O.GARMURA DIST. HAILAKANDI ASSAM.

¶18

5:MUKTADIR HUSSAIN S/O. ARJOMOND ALI R/O. VILL. AND P/O. RATABARI DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788735.

¶19

6:FAYSAL AHMED S/O. ASHRAF HUSSAIN R/O. VILL. AND P/O. RATABARI DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788735. 7:ALTAF HUSSAIN S/O. LT. ABDUL LATIF R/O. VILL.- MANIKGANJ P/O. MANIKGANJ DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM.

¶20

8:ASAB UDDIN R/O. MANUHAR ALI R/O. VILL.- KADAIRGOOL P/O. GULCHERRA IST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM.

¶21

9:SHERENABEGUM LASKAR D/O. FAIZUL HOQUE LASKAR R/O. VILL.- KESHARKAPON P/O. DHARAKUNA DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788712.

¶22

10:MALIK AHMED S/O. MATASIM ALI R/O. VILL.- KESHARKAPON P/O. DHARAKUNA DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM

¶23

Page No.# 3/10

¶24

PIN-788712.

¶25

11:KAMAL UDDIN S/O. LT. ALA UDDIN R/O. VILL.- VERARPATTA P/O. NILAMBAZAR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788722. 12:NEHARA BEGUM W/O. NOOR UDDIN R/O. VILL.- AND P/O. NILAMBAZAR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-788712. 13:MOKBUL ALI S/O. LT. AYUB ALI R/O. VILL.- PATTAGRAM P/O. DUHALIA DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM. 14:BEGUM HAMIDA CHOUDHURY D/O. ABDUS SHAQHID CHOUDHURY R/O. VILL.- JABDA P/O. MANIKGANJ DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM. 15:SRIKANTA ROY S/O. SRI RANJIT KUMAR ROY R/O. VILL.- PADMARPAR P/O. GIRISHGANJ DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM. 16:MUJIA BEGOM D/O. TAHIR ALI R/O. VILL.- DUBAKHAL KARIBARI P/O. KAYASTRAGRAM DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM. 17:ASIA BEGUM W/O. MUSLEH AHMED CHOUDHURY R/O. VILL.- LATASHAIL

¶26

Page No.# 4/10

¶27

P/O. LAKHIBAZAR DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM. 18:QUTUB UDDIN S/O. SUNA MIA R/O. VILL.- PATIALA P/O. PECHALA DIST. KARIMGANJ ASSAM PIN-78873. 19:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER KARIMGANJ ASSAM

¶28

20:SABRA SIKSHA ABHIYAN ASSAM. REP. BY ITS MISSION DIRECTOR KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781019

¶29

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. NAYAN JYOTI KHATANIAR, MR. R MAZUMDAR,MS K DAS

¶30

Advocate for the Respondent : , GA, ASSAM,MR H R A CHOUDHURY(R-1,2,3,6,7,8, 9,10,11,12,13,14, 15,16,17,18),MR. M H LASKAR(R-1,2,3,6,7,8, 9,10,11,12,13,14, 15,16,17,18),MR. S ROY(R-1,2,3,6,7,8,9, 10,11,12,13,14,15, 16,17,18),M. HOSSAIN (R-1,2,3,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14, 15,16,17,18)

¶31

BEFORE

¶32

HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY

ORDER

02-06-2026

(A.D. Choudhury, J)

The present intra-Court appeal is preferred by the State of

¶37

Page No.# 5/10

¶38

Assam in the Department of School Education, assailing the order dated 04.12.2023, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No. 789/2022.

¶39

We have heard Mr. S.K. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. Also heard Mr. H.R.A.Choudhury, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. M.H. Laskar, learned counsel for the respondent/opposite party Nos. 1 to 18, and Mr. S. Bora, learned Standing counsel, SSA for the respondent/opposite party No. 20.

¶40

The controversy lies in a narrow campus.

¶41

The writ petitioners questioned the rejection of their claim for provincialization under the provisions of the Assam Education (Provincialization of Service of Teachers and Re-organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2017).

¶42

The rejection was founded principally on the ground that the names of the writ petitioners did not appear in the DISE Code up to the Academic Year 2011-2012.

¶43

The first and foremost aspect that requires consideration is whether such a criterion is traceable to the statutory scheme under the Act, 2017.

¶44

A bare reading of Section 2 (zb) of the Act, 2017, which defines “Venture Lower Primary School,” shows that for a Venture Lower Primary School to qualify for provincialization, its name must figure in the DISE Code up to the years 2009-2010 and prior thereto.

¶45

Similarly, Section 3 of the Act, 2017 lays down “ Eligibility

¶46

Page No.# 6/10

¶47

criteria for selection of educational institution for provincialization of services of teachers/tutors” and more particularly, Section 3 (xii) provides that enrollment should be verified with reference to the DISE Code of 2009-10 or before. The said provision further prescribes the mandatory physical verification of students and checking of the records of attendance of students of the last 3 years of provincialization.

¶48

The statute does not require that the names of individual teachers necessarily appear in the DISE Code up to 2011-12 as a condition precedent for consideration of their cases for provincialization.

¶49

It is a settled principle that when the legislature has prescribed specific eligibility criteria, neither the Executive nor the Court can supplement the statute by importing additional conditions. The criteria applied in the present case, namely, the appearance of the writ petitioners’ names in DISE Code up to 2011-12, is not borne out by any provision of the Act, 2017.

¶50

The learned Single Judge, therefore, rightly held that the rejection of the writ petitioners’ claim on such a basis would not be sustained.

¶51

The second issue concerns the role of the Joint Scrutiny Committee constituted by the government.

¶52

The statutory framework under the Act, 2017, envisages scrutiny of cases by the District Level Scrutiny Committee (hereinafter referred to as the DLSC) under Section 13 and the State Level Scrutiny Committee (hereinafter referred to as the SLSC) under Section 13 (10).

¶53

Section 13 of the Act, 2017, elaborately provides for the constitution, powers and functions of these bodies. Significantly, Section

¶54

Page No.# 7/10

¶55

13(11) authorises the SLSC to cause physical verification of the institutions, inspect documents and records and call for such further records as may be necessary for the purpose of verification.

¶56

We find no provision in the Act, 2017, recognising or conferring any adjudicatory role upon a Joint Committee of the nature referred to by the appellant State.

¶57

While we recognise that the government may constitute committees for administrative assistance, such bodies cannot assume a statutory role, nor can their conclusions supplant the decision-making process specifically contemplated by the legislature under Section 13 of the Act, 2017.

¶58

An executive management arrangement cannot override or modify a statutory scheme.

¶59

The materials on record indicate that the Joint Committee required verification as to whether the names of the incumbent writ petitioners appeared in the DISE Code of 2011 and thereafter, and whether the school had specified enrollment during the subsequent years.

¶60

These parameters, as correctly noted by the learned Single Judge, are not the parameters prescribed by the Act, 2017, for determining eligibility.

¶61

The conclusion reached on the basis of such an exercise would not, therefore, furnish a valid foundation for rejecting the writ petitioners’ claim.

¶62

The contention advanced by Mr, S.K. Talukdar, learned counsel

¶63

Page No.# 8/10

¶64

appearing on behalf of the appellants, that such scrutiny was necessary to ascertain continuity of service and continued existence of the institutions, also does not persuade us. The Act, 2017 itself contains adequate safeguards in this regard.

¶65

As noticed herein above, Section 3 (xii) provides for physical verification of students and verification of attendance records, while Section 13 (6) & 13 (8) confer ample authority upon the SLSC and Section 13 (11) upon DLSC to undertake physical verification and examination of all the records. Thus, a statute having prescribed the mechanism for such verification, recourse to an additional extrastatutory procedure cannot be countenanced.

¶66

We are equally unable to accept the objection of the appellants regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of the availability of an alternative remedy of an appeal under Section 14 of the Act, 2017.

¶67

The challenge before the writ Court was essentially directed against a decision allegedly rendered by the Joint Committee, an authority not contemplated under the Act, 2017 and based on considerations foreign to the statutory scheme.

¶68

On the other hand, Section 14 creates two appellate authorities, i.e. the SLSC as the appellate authority against any recommendation of the DLSC and the State Government in the concerned Administrative Department as the appellate authority against any recommendation of the SLSC.

¶69

There is no occasion for the writ petitioners to prefer any appeal against the recommendation of the DLSC, as the State Committee has

¶70

Page No.# 9/10

¶71

favourably recommended their names and the SLSC has not yet taken any decision.

¶72

Even otherwise, questions touching upon jurisdiction and legality of the decision-making process have always constituted recognised exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy.

¶73

The learned Single Judge, therefore, committed no error in entertaining the writ petition.

¶74

What is of considerable significance is that the learned Single Judge has not granted the writ petitioners any final or substantive relief of provincialization.

¶75

The learned Single Judge merely directed that the proposal of DLSC be placed before the SLSC for fresh consideration strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2017 and after exercising the powers available under Section 13(11). Thus, all questions relating to eligibility, continuity of service, enrollment, and compliance with statutory requirements remain open for examination by the SLSC.

¶76

The order under appeal merely restores the decision-making process to the channel contemplated under the statute and ensures that the case of the writ petitioners is examined on a legally permissible parameter.

¶77

In an intra-Court appeal, interference would be justified only if the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge suffer from patent illegality, perversity or manifest error of law.

¶78

We find none here.

¶79

On the contrary, the reasoning adopted by the learned Single

¶80

Page No.# 10/10

¶81

Judge faithfully adheres to the statutory framework and advances the rule that executive action must remain within the confines of parent legislation.

¶82

Accordingly, we hold that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in setting aside the rejection founded on the DISE Code of 2011-12 and in directing consideration of the cases of the writ petitioners by the SLSC in accordance with law.

¶83