Aminul Hoque Laskar Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

P.O. AND P.S. SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSAM 6:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER CACHAR-CUM-MEMBER SECRETARY OF DISTRICT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE CACHAR P.O. AND P.S. SILCHAR DIST. CACHAR ASSA

¶17

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A M BARBHUIYA, MS S R MAZARBHUIYA,MS A BEGUM

¶18

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

¶19

BEFORE

¶20

HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Date : 03.06.2026

¶23

Heard Mr A M Barbhuiya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr P N Sarma,

¶24

learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the Elementary Education Department.

¶25

By this application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the provincialization of the petitioner’s service as Grade-IV in M A Laskar and S A Laskar, ME School, Kashipur, Cachar, as per the provisions of Assam Education (Provincialization of Services of Non-Teaching Staff of Venture Educational Institutions) Act, 2018 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘2018 Act’).

¶26

The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as a Grade-IV employee of the aforesaid school by a recommendation of the School Managing Committee on

¶27

Page No.# 3/4

¶28

10.08.2008, and that since then, he has been working regularly in the said post. It the further case of the petitioner that though the post of the petitioner as Grade-IV in the said school was found eligible, as per the provisions of the 2018 Act, and whose name was forwarded by the District Elementary Education Officer -cum- Member Secretary of District Level Scrutiny Committee for provincialization of his service along with other staffs to the Government, the service of the petitioner was not provincialized, whereas other Grade-IV staffs of the same list were provincialized in their services.

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is eligible for provincialization of his services as per law and that the District Scrutiny Committee after verification of his documents, found him eligible for the said provincialization and forwarded his name, but the State Level Scrutiny Committee had not acted upon such recommendation, even after the expiry of almost 4 (four) years from the date of recommendation by the District Level Scrutiny Committee. He submits that the further scrutiny by the State Level Scrutiny by the SLSC has not been done till date.

¶30

It is res integra that if the employees are found eligible for provincialization of their services, as per the mandate of law, the same shall be followed.

¶31

The petitioners herein are stated to be eligible as per law, but their cases have not been considered by the SLSC, although recommended by the DLSC.

¶32

In view of the above, the petitioner is directed to submit a representation before the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education along with the

¶33

Page No.# 4/4

¶34

certified copy of this order, claiming for provincialization of his services, in view of the mandate of of law. The Secretary, as such is directed to dispose of the said representation, if submitted within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the representations along with the certified copy of this order. The authority concerned, if finds that the case was not considered by the SLSC, may require placing of the case of the petitioner before the SLSC, for scrutiny of the service particulars. In the event, the SLSC recommends the case of the petitioner after verification of the documents, the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education will take further steps for provincialization of the services of the petitioner, and in case, the petitioner is not found entitled to the benefits of provincialization, the Secretary to the Government of Assam would pass a speaking order in respect of the petitioner, by disclosing the reasons for rejection. It is not to be lost sight of the fact that the DLSC had already recommended the case of the petitioner for provincialization of the services, which shows that he was found eligible under the 2018 Act, and in view of the same, the entire case of the petitioner be considered.

¶35

Writ petition is disposed of.

¶36

JUDGE

¶37

Comparing Assistant

Aminul Hoque Laskar v. the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aminul Hoque 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jamal Ali Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

All Assam Development Authority Employees Joint Council and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 27 Ors.

Chandan Ch Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Kularanjan Das Vs Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. and 5 Ors.

Bijoy Deka Vs the State of Assam and 9 Ors.

Nikhil Gogoi Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors.