Asraf Ali Laskar and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/6

¶2

GAHC010159832024

¶3

undefined

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/4178/2024

¶6

ASRAF ALI LASKAR AND ANR SON OF LATE TAJAMUL ALI LASKAR, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BORJURAI, P.O.- BOALIPAR, P.S.- HAILAKANDI, DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM, PIN- 788155.

¶7

2: RAJAUL KARIM LASKAR SON OF LATE FORIZ UDDIN LASKAR

¶8

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- BONDUKMARA

¶9

P.O.- RATANPUR P.S.- HAILAKANDI

¶10

DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI ASSAM

¶11

PIN- 788155

¶12

VERSUS

¶13

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (ELEMENTARY) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.

¶14

2:THE STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM

¶15

KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 781019.

¶16

Page No.# 2/6

¶17

3:THE MISSION DIRECTOR ASOM SARBA SIKSHA ABHIYAN MISSION KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI- 781019. 4:THE DISTRICT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788162. 5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER HAILAKANDI-CUM-DISTRICT MISSION CO-ORDINATOR ASOM SARBA SIKSHA ABHIYAN MISSION HAILAKANDI PIN- 788151. 6:THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS HAILAKANDI DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788151. 7:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER HAILAKANDI DISTRICT- HAILAKANDI ASSAM PIN- 788151

¶18

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. B U LASKAR, MR. S BANIK

¶19

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, SC, SSA,GA, ASSAM

¶20

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR

¶21

ORDER

¶22

11.03.2026

¶23

Heard Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P.

¶24

Page No.# 3/6

¶25

Nayak, learned Additional Advocate General and Standing Counsel for the SSA and Mr. B. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel for the Department of Elementary Education.

¶26

The order dated 06.02.2026 recorded as follows :-

¶27

“ The allegation in this writ petition is that though the school had the requisite number of students to be considered for provincialisation, based on the date uploaded by CRCCS serving under the SSA, the school was shown to have 28 Nos. of student and therefore, the provincialisation was rejected by the concerned authority.

¶28

The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Minutes of the Meeting of the DSC in which it has been reflected that the school namely, Bondukmara Purbopar VLP School, where the DSC had decided to consider the enrollment status as per the field reports submitted by the Block Elementary Education Officer and the District Elementary Education Officer and not as per the portal.

¶29

It appears that the DSC had taken a view that the CRCCs did not upload the actual enrollment and there are also certain shadow area where the actual enrolment could not be uploaded due to unavailability of mobile network.

¶30

In the present case, it is seen that it is not a case of enrollment number being not uploaded but the discrepancies in enrolment number between the report given by the CRCCs as uploaded in the website and the enrollment as certified by the

¶31

Page No.# 4/6

¶32

Block Elementary Education Officer, Hailakandi and the District Elementary Education Officer, Hailakandi. The reports were required to have been verified and thereafter either uploaded or forwarded to the concerned authorities.

¶33

The District Elementary Education Officer and the Block Elementary Education Officer concerned shall file their respective individual affidavits bringing on record the enrollment that the school had in 2017, 2018 and 2019 along with the names and the details of the students who were found present in the school on the date of inspection by the aforesaid authorities. The CRCCS concerned, who had uploaded the details in the portal in respect of the aforesaid years, shall also file an affidavit along with details of the students of the enrollment of the student, and the students who were found to be present during his visit. The MD/SSA shall ensure that the concerned CRCCs is informed about this order. “

¶34

The learned Standing Counsel for the Department of Elementary Education placed before this Court an instruction dated 10.03.2026 issued by the Office of the District Elementary Education Officer (DEEO), Hailakandi, wherein reference has been made to the report submitted by the District Elementary Education Officer, Hailakandi on 30.09.2019 to the Director of Elementary Education. In the said report, the number of enrolments for the year 2017 was shown as 31, for the year 2018 as 37, and for the year 2019 as 41.

¶35

Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Advocate and Standing Counsel for the SSA, has also endorsed the aforesaid position based on written instructions. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 08 August 2022 issued by the Director of Elementary Education, noting that the

¶36

Page No.# 5/6

¶37

enrolment of Bondukmara Purbopar V.L.P. School had been shown in the DSC report as 28 students, is erroneous. In none of the aforesaid years was the enrolment shown as 28. As per the instructions produced by the learned Standing Counsel for the Department of Elementary Education, the enrolment in the year 2018 was 49 and in the year 2019 was 32. Accordingly, the conclusion of the Director of Elementary Education that the petitioner's school was not entitled to consideration for provincialization only on the ground that it had fewer than 30 students is interfered with.

¶38

In such circumstances, this Court interferes with the order dated 08.08.2022 issued by the Director of Elementary Education rejecting the case of the petitioner’s institution for provincialization of the services of the employees.

¶39

Accordingly, the State Level Scrutiny Committee, represented by the Director of Elementary Education, is directed to take up the case of Bondukmara Purbopar V.L.P. School again for consideration of provincialization of the services of the employees therein, namely, Asraf Ali Laskar, Head Teacher, and Rajaul Karim Laskar, Assistant Teacher, by considering the number of student enrolments in the said school to be above and beyond the requirement as prescribed under the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-Organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017.

¶40

In case the institution is found to satisfy all other eligibility conditions as required under the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-Organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017, the order provincializing the services of the eligible employees shall be brought to its logical conclusion within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶41

Page No.# 6/6

¶42

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶43

JUDGE

¶44

Comparing Assistant

Asraf Ali Laskar and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Asraf Ali Laskar and Anr. v. the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sachin Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Smti. Sarifa Begum Vs Mahtabuddin Ahmed and 7 Ors.

Sipra Dhar Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Nilamoni Nath Vs the State of Assam

Bakul Chandra Hazarika Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Smti Pravati Saha Roy Vs the State of Assam and Ors.