Assistant teachers denied provincialisation for lacking two years' continuous service sought consideration as dropped teachers. Following Jintu Bordoloi, the Court directed their cases be placed before the High Power Committee with Rule 7 relaxation considered.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010269712025
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/7250/2025
DEEPAK BORGOHAIN AND 3 ORS.
ASSISTANT TEACHER, BHORIDHOWA M.E.SCHOOL, P.O.- BHORIDHOWA, DISTRICT- NAGAON.
2: ZAKIRUL ISLAM ASSISTANT TEACHER CHETA RUPAHI M.E. MADRESSA P.O. HERAPATI DIST. NAGAON.
3: DILUARA HASINA ASSISTANT TEACHER CHETIA RUPAHI M.E. MADRESSA P.O. HERAPATI DIST. NAGAON.
4: MUZAKKIR HASSAN BORBHUYAN ASSISTANT TEACHER (DROPPED) NAKHULI KHAGORIJAN M.E. SCHOOL P.O. NAKHULI BAZAR DIST. NAGAO
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-781006.
2:THE HIGH POWER COMMITTEE (HPC) FOR PROVINCIALISATION OF SERVICES OF DROPPED TEACHERS UNDER ELEMENTARY EDUCATION DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN DISPUR
Page No.# 2/7
GUWAHATI-781006.
3:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION
ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19.
4:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER (DEEO)
NAGAON ASSAM PIN-782001.
5:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER (BEEO)
KALIABOR/KHAGARIJAN ASSAM PIN-78202
Advocate for the Petitioner : MRS. K DEVI, N O POMONG
Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU,
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
ORDER
Date : 16.02.2026
Page No.# 3/7
After the passing of the said directions by this Court, vide the said order dated 29.05.2024, the Director, Elementary Education, Assam, vide communication dated 16.07.2024, requested the Secretary to the Government of Assam, Department of School Education, Assam, to place the case of the petitioners before the High Power Committee. However, in
Page No.# 4/7
the said communication, it was noted that the petitioners had not completed 2 (Two) years of continuous service before the provincilization of their respective schools and further, that the names of the petitioners were also not found in the details submitted by the jurisdictional District Elementary Education Officer, at the relevant point of time, when the schools of the petitioners were considered for provincialization.
“5. Mr. Saikia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in WP(C) 342/2011, WP(C) 703/2013 and WP(C) 1046/2013 submits that the petitioners in these petitions had not completed two years of service on the date of provincialisation of their schools. In this regard, Mr. Saikia has drawn the attention of this Court to the decision of this Court rendered in WP(C) 6842/2010, disposed of on 05.04.2013, in which this Court had directed the authorities to consider the case of the petitioners therein for provincialisation by relaxing the two years of teaching experience, which was required for provincialisation, by invoking Rule 7 of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialisation) Rules, 1977, as had been done in case of 130 similarly situated dropped teachers. By referring to paragraphs 40 and 41 of the aforesaid decision, Mr. Saikia prays that similar direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners also for provincialisation by invoking Rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules. For better appreciation, paragraphs 40 and 41 of the aforesaid decision of this Court are reproduced below:
"40. Claims of the petitioners are not fresh ones. They have been knocking the doors of this Court since a long time. Their cases were scrutinized by the departmental authorities and put up before the High Power Committee. As already noticed above, only ground of rejection of their cases is not having two years of service on the date of provincialisation of the respective schools. While the benefit of relaxation under Rule 7 has been extended to 130
Page No.# 5/7
similarly situated dropped teachers, the same has not been extended to the petitioners without any reasonable basis or justification. While exercising the power under Rule 7 of the Rules, the State is required to act in a fair and judicious manner. There should not be any arbitrariness or discrimination in the exercise of such power which would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court is of the view that petitioners were subjected to an unfair and discriminatory treatment, which situation is now required to be remedied.
Page No.# 6/7
the petitioners, in the present proceeding, is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in the case of Jintu Bordoloi (Supra) and accordingly, the present Writ Petition can also be disposed of, in the light of the said decision.
Page No.# 7/7
within a period of 3 (Three) months from the date the representations, preferred by the petitioners, are placed before it by the Director, Elementary Education, Assam.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
1 issue framed by the court
Whether dropped assistant teachers without two years' continuous service at provincialisation are entitled to have their cases reconsidered by the High Power Committee with relaxation under Rule 7.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jintu Bordoloi & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & OrsApplied¶4
Jintu Bordoloi & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors [Order dated 29.10.2019 passed in WP(C) No. 1183/2014]
WP(C) No. 6842/2010Referred¶4
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Deepak Borgohain
Zakirul Islam
Diluara Hasina
Muzakkir Hassan Borbhuyan
The State of Assam
The High Power Committee (HPC) for Provincialisation of Services of Dropped Teachers
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
