Ziaul Karim Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

¶1

Page No.# 1/9

¶2

GAHC010015152024

¶3

2026:GAU-AS:3876

¶4

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

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/437/2024

¶6

ZIAUL KARIM LASKAR S/O- LATE TASAR ALI LASKAR, VILL- BISHNUPUR, P.O- SARBANANDAPUR, PIN-788163, P.S- LALA, DIST- HAILAKANDI, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT DISPUR, JANATA BHAWAN, GUWAHATI-6

¶9

2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19

¶10

3:THE STATE LEVEL SCRUTINY COMMITTEE REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN CUM THE DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 4:THE DISTRICT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE V REP. BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HAILAKANDI P.O- HAILAKANDI DIST- HAILAKANDI

¶11

5:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER

¶12

Page No.# 2/9

¶13

HAILAKANDI P.O- HAILAKANDI DIST- HAILAKANDI 6:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER HAILAKANDI P.O- HAILAKANDI DIST- HAILAKANDI 7:MISSION DIRECTOR SAMAGRA SHISHA AXOM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-781019 ASSA

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M J QUADIR, MR. A K HANNAN

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, SC, SSA,MR B DEURI, G.A. ASSAM

¶16

:::BEFORE:::

¶17

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE

¶18

Date on which judgment is reserved : 17.03.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 17.03.2026
Whether the pronouncement is of the
Operative part of the judgment : N/A
Whether the full judgment has been
Pronounced : Yes

¶19

Judgment & Order (Oral)

¶20

Heard Mr. M. J. Quadir, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. D.

¶21

Page No.# 3/9

¶22

D. Barman, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents; Mr. B. Talukdar, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education and Mr. H. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, SSA.

¶23

2. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to provincialize the service of the petitioner as Tutor at Lalacherra Garden M.E. School, which has now been merged with Janata M.E. School, in accordance with the provisions of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Service of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 2017").

¶24

3. The case, in brief, is that the petitioner was appointed as an Additional Assistant Teacher by an order dated 01.12.2003, at Lalacherra Garden M.E. School and he has joined on 02.12.2003. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher by an order dated 15.10.2008 and by an order dated 01.05.2010, he was appointed as the Headmaster of the said school.

¶25

4. The District Scrutiny Committee, Hailakandi, in its meeting dated 31.12.2018, recommended and forwarded the name of the petitioner along with 2 (two) other teachers of Lalacherra Garden M.E. School, for provincialisation of the service in terms of the Act of 2017. The provision, particularly Section 3(i) (xi), provides that in the case of a Venture Upper Primary School, there shall be a minimum of three teachers or tutors, with at least one teacher for each of the subjects: Science, Mathematics, Social Studies and Languages.

¶26

5. The Lalacherra Garden M.E. School, in which the petitioner was appointed, has been merged with Janata M.E. School in the same locality of Hailakandi

¶27

Page No.# 4/9

¶28

District, as per the Memo dated 05.02.2021. The services of the teachers of Science and Social Science have been provincialised, excluding the petitioner as the language teacher, by dropping his name from the provincialisation list without any justification.

¶29

6. The petitioner, aggrieved by such exclusion, filed an application before the District Elementary Education Officer, Hailakandi, on 06.02.2021, raising his grievance. The application was forwarded to the concerned authority, indicating that the name of one Faruk Ahmed Choudhury had been wrongly mentioned twice in the list for appointment, instead of the name of the petitioner.

¶30

7. The Director of the Elementary Education, vide its letter dated 24.03.2023, requested the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education, to approve the name of the petitioner for provincialisation of his service as Tutor against the Lalacherra Garden M.E. School, which was merged with the base school Janata M.E. School, i.e., in place of Faruk Ahmed Choudhury, as the name of Faruk Ahmed Choudhury appeared inadvertently twice in the list for provincialisation. It has also been clarified that at the time of submission of the proposal to the Government, the name of the said Faruk Ahmed Choudhury had been wrongly mentioned twice in place of the petitioner, whereas the name of the petitioner was to be included at Serial No. 1. Despite such clarification, the respondent authorities have not considered the same, thereby depriving him of the provincialisation of his service as Tutor in terms of the Act of 2017.

¶31

8. Mr. M. J. Quadir, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that there is no dispute as regards the entitlement of the petitioner for provincialisation of his service as Tutor in terms of the Act of 2017, inasmuch as, by communication

¶32

Page No.# 5/9

¶33

dated 24.03.2023, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, has clarified that in place of the petitioner, the name of Faruk Ahmed Choudhury has been inadvertently mentioned twice, whereas the name of the petitioner ought to have been mentioned. Therefore, the respondent authorities may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for provincialisation of his service as Tutor in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act of 2017.

¶34

9. By filing an affidavit, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, has sought to project that the name of the petitioner did not appear in the DISE 2011-12, which contradicts the earlier DISE verification report sent to the Government on 24.03.2023 and which was part of the original file from where the State Level Scrutiny Committee (SLSC) verified records. The Director has further stated that the original file, from which the matter for provincialisation of the service was processed, has been missing since 2023. Consequently, a new file was constructed and the case was processed again before the concerned authorities. Since the DISE verification report submitted by SSA, Assam, which was placed before the SLSC, was part of the original file that went missing, another report was sought via order dated 05.09.2024.

¶35

10. Pursuant thereto, the SSA, Assam, in its report dated 07.09.2024, mentioned that the name of the petitioner did not appear in the DISE 20112012. Therefore, in its meeting held on 23.09.2024, the SLSC decided to cancel the earlier recommendation in favor of the petitioner for provincialisation of service. This decision was based on the fact that the name of the petitioner was not found in the DISE data for 2011-12, as recorded by NEUPA, New Delhi.

¶36

11. The SSA, Assam, has also filed an affidavit-in-opposition; however, nothing relevant has been stated, except for annexing a copy of the year-wise status of

¶37

Page No.# 6/9

¶38

teachers at Lalacherra Garden M.E. School. The document shows the DISE/UDISE database, indicating that the name of the petitioner appeared in the DISE 2012-2013. It also provides details of the career progression, from joining as Additional Teacher in 2003 to appointment as Head Teacher in 2010, covering all subjects.

¶39

12. This Court, by order dated 02.02.2026, having noticed the contradictory stand of the Mission Director, SSA, Assam and the State respondents in the affidavit and the documents annexed, directed that instructions be obtained regarding the recommendation of the SLSC, which was based on certain verified reports from the SSA Mission. Today, however, Mr. H. Baruah, learned Standing Counsel, SSA, Assam, submits that no instructions have been provided by the SSA, Assam, as sought by this Court.

¶40

13. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record.

¶41

14. For provincialisation of the service of the teacher in terms of the Act of 2017, the DISE data for the year 2011-12 is mandatory.

¶42

15. By a communication dated 24.03.2024, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, to the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education, has clarified that the DEEO, Hailakandi, had submitted the proposal for provincialisation of the service of Lalacherra Garden M.E. School, with the recommendation of the District Scrutiny Committee, Hailakandi, in respect of three teachers, including the petitioner. However, at the time of submission of the proposal for provincialisation of services to the Government by the Office of the Director, based on the recommendation of the SLSC and

¶43

Page No.# 7/9

¶44

Joint Committee, the name of Faruk Ahmed Choudhury inadvertently appeared twice at Serial Nos. 1 and 3 in the format of particulars for provincialisation of services, whereas the name of the petitioner ought to have been included at Serial No. 1. It has also been clarified that, based on Government sanction, the services of two Tutors, namely, Zahid Hussain Mazumdar and Faruk Ahmed Choudhury, were provincialised against Lalacherra Garden M.E. School, out of the three sanctioned posts, leaving one Tutor post vacant.

¶45

16. It is further stated that after receiving the DISE data from MD, SSA, Assam, the same was placed before the SLSC meeting held on 26.07.2022. The SLSC reviewed all records from the DSC, Hailakandi and relevant records furnished by DEEO, Hailakandi, as well as MD, SSA, Assam. The committee then decided to recommend the name of the petitioner for provincialisation of service as per the Act of 2017, in place of the name of Faruk Ahmed Choudhury, whose name had been reflected twice in place of the petitioner. Therefore, the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, has requested to approve for provincialisation of the service of the petitioner as Tutor against the said school.

¶46

17. On perusal of the communication dated 24.03.2023 from the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled to provincialisation of his service as Tutor, as the only mistake appears to have occurred due to the inadvertent mention of the name of Faruk Ahmed Choudhury twice in the proposal for provincialisation of the teaching staff. The Director has clarified that the name of the petitioner appears in the DISE data for 2011-12, as per the report of the Mission Director, SSA, Assam, a mandatory requirement under the Act of 2017. It has also been clarified that, as one post of Tutor is lying vacant, the service of the petitioner could be provincialised.

¶47

Page No.# 8/9

¶48

18. Having considered above, although the State respondents and the SSA, Assam, have made an attempt to take a stand contrary to the records in their affidavits by claiming that the name of the petitioner does not appear in the DISE database of 2011-12, this Court is of the view that such stands cannot be accepted, as they are contrary to the record of the respondent authorities, particularly the communications dated 24.03.2023 by the Director of Elementary Education.

¶49

19. It is a settled position of law that public orders, once made, cannot be construed in light of subsequent explanations provided by way of an affidavit, as laid down in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Anr. Vs. the Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors., reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405 . The relevant paragraph is extracted hereinbelow:

¶50

“ 8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. In Gordhandas Bhanji case :

¶51

"Public orders publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the acting and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself".”

¶52

20. Having considered that the Director of Elementary Education, vide communication dated 24.03.2023, has, in no uncertain terms, clarified that the name of the petitioner was wrongly omitted from the proposal for provincialisation of services due to the inadvertent mentioning of other person’s name twice in place of the petitioner, based on the report from SSA, Assam,

¶53

Page No.# 9/9

¶54

wherein the name of the petitioner appeared in the DISE data for the year 2011-12, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the provincialisation of his service in terms of the Act of 2017.

¶55

21. In view of the above discussion made hereinabove, I am of the considered view that the non-provincialisation of the service of the petitioner by the respondent authority, despite the entitlement of the petitioner under the Act of 2017, would be unjust, as the mistake was inadvertent due to the mentioning of one name twice in place of the name of the petitioner in the proposal for provincialisation of services. Thus, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for provincialisation of his service.

¶56

22. Accordingly, the respondent authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for provincialisation of his service as Tutor in terms of the Act of 2017. The exercise for consideration shall be completed within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶57

23. The writ petition stands allowed and disposed of, accordingly.

¶58

JUDGE

¶59

Comparing Assistant

Ziaul Karim Laskar v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ziaul Karim Laskar v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Akhil Barman and 271 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 16 Ors.

Purobi Patowary @ Purabi Patowari Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Jamshed Ali Sheikh and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Diptiman Bathari and 4 Ors. Vs the N C Hills Autonomous Council Haflong and 9 Ors.

Bimal Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Basanta Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.