Ms. Jita Hazarika vs The State Of Assam And 6 Ors

Page No.# 1/21
GAHC010171452021

2026:GAU-AS:7555
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/5713/2021
MS. JITA HAZARIKA
W/O SRI UPEN CHANDRA DEKA, R/O WEST MILAN NAGAR, Q-LANE,
DIBRUGARH, P.O.- CENTRAL REVENUE (C.R) BUILDING, DIST-
DIBRUGARH, ASSAM, PIN-786003
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 6 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT.
OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (HIGHER) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-
781006
2:THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION
KAHILIPARA
ASSAM
GUWAHATI-781019
3:THE GOVERNING BODY (G.B.) OF NANDALAL BORGOHAIN CITY
COLLEGE
NIRMALI GAON
DIBRUGARH
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
P.O.-C.R. BUILDING
DIST- DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN-786003
4:THE PRINCIPAL-CUM-SECRETARY TO THE G.B. OF NANDALAL
BORGOHAIN CITY COLLEGE
NIRMALI GAON
DIBRUGARH
P.O.-C.R. BUILDING

Page No.# 2/21
P.S.-DIBRUGARH
DIST- DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN-786003
5:DR. MANASHI GOGOI BORGOHAIN
VICE-PRINCIPAL OF NANDALAL BORGOHAIN CITY COLLEGE
NIRMALI GAON
DIBRUGARH
P.O.-C.R. BUILDING
P.S.-DIBRUGARH
DIST- DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN-786003
6:MS. MRIDUSMITA GOGOI
TUTOR
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
NANDALAL BORGOHAIN CITY COLLEGE
NIRMALI GAON
DIBRUGARH
P.O.-C.R. BUILDING
P.S.-DIBRUGARH
DIST- DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN-786003
7:MS. MOUCHMI GOGOI
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
NANDALAL BORGOHAIN CITY COLLEGE
NIRMALI GAON
DIBRUGARH
P.O.-C.R. BUILDING
P.S.-DIBRUGARH
DIST- DIBRUGARH
ASSAM
PIN-78600
Mr. J. Abedin
Advocates for the petitioner :
Advocates for the respondents : Mr. R.M. Deka and
Mr. Mr. S. Ali
Mr. A. Buragohain

Page No.# 3/21

Mr. S. Das
Mr. S.S. Goswami

BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR
Date on which judgment is reserved : 26.05.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 01.06.2026

Whether the pronouncement is of the : N/A
operative part of the judgment ?
Whether the full judgment has been : Yes
pronounced?
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
Heard Mr. J. Abedin, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.
R.M. Deka, as well as Mr. S. Ali, learned Counsels for the respondent No. 7. Also
heard Mr. A. Buragohain, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 6 and Mr. S.
Das, learned Standing Counsel, Higher Education Department, Assam, for the
respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Also heard Mr. S.S. Goswami, learned Counsel for the
respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5.
2. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by
the fact that the College Authorities did not forward the name of the petitioner
for consideration for provincialisation by the appropriate authorities, in due time,

Page No.# 4/21
for which the petitioner had lost the opportunity to be considered for
provincialisation on her turn under both Assam Venture Educational Institutions
(Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 2011),
and under the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and
Re-Organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as
Act of 2017).
3. It is the case of the petitioner that she had completed her M.A. in Economics
in the year 1991 from Dibrugarh University, securing second class with 54.63%
marks. Accordingly, she was offered an appointment by the respondent No.4 in
the Nandalal Borgohain City College, Nimaligaon, Dibrugarh and the petitioner
joined her services on 31.12.1996 in the Economics Department as the second
faculty member.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that when the petitioner was appointed, there
was a standard practice or norm where the percentages above 54.5% in
master’s degrees were allowed to be rounded off to 55%. The petitioner had
again done her Master’s degree in Economics through distance mode, and in
April 2011, she cleared the same by securing 55.08%.
5. In accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2011, the names of different
staff members of the college had been forwarded to the appropriate authorities
for being considered for provincialisation of services. The learned Counsel for
the petitioner has referred to the statement annexed to the writ petition,
showing the persons eligible for provincialisation of service as per the Act of

Page No.# 5/21
2011 (as amended in 2012) in respect of the college in issue, to show that, in
the subject of Economics, only the name of one Assistant Professor had been
forwarded as eligible and qualified for provincialisation of services.
6. It is the case of the petitioner that when the second phase of provincialisation
was being taken up, this Court, by the orders passed in WP(C) No. 3190 of
2012 and other connected petitions, had declared the Act of 2011 to be
constitutionally invalid. By an order dated 02.01.2017, passed in Review Petition
No.167 of 2016, this Court had granted protection to those persons who had
already been provincialised under the Act of 2011, until the new legislation, as
proposed, was enacted.
7. By an order dated 31.05.2013, the Commissioner and Secretary to the
Government of Assam, Higher Education Department had directed that the
faculty members, who were appointed during the period from 06.09.1989 to
20.02.2003 and had scored 54.5% in their Post Graduation, would be entitled to
have their percentage of marks to be rounded off to 55% and they would be
treated as qualified for the Post of Lecturers in Colleges in the State of Assam.
The petitioner belonged to this stream of incumbents appointed in the aforesaid
period.
8. The Government in the Education Department initiated an exercise for
provincialisation of teaching and non-teaching staff of various venture
institutions of the State in accordance with the Act of 2017. With the hope that
her case would also be considered for provincialisation of services under the Act

Page No.# 6/21
of 2017, the petitioner submitted her particulars to the Principal of the College
for placing her case before the appropriate authorities for provincialisation along
with other incumbents of the College.
9. The first list of eligible teachers under the 2017 Act was published by the
Office of the Director of Higher Education on 17.08.2020, and the petitioner
came to know that her name did not figure in the said first list. However, the
names of the respondents 6 and 7 figured as eligible teachers in the list. On
21.08.2020, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Director of
Higher Education with a prayer for consideration of her case for the second post
of Economics in the College concerned. A representation was also submitted
through the Principal of the college, who had forwarded the same, but had
failed to inform the petitioner that her name had not yet been sent up for
consideration for provincialisation even under the 2017 Act.
10. It is the case of the petitioner that the Principal of the College had
thereafter coerced her to put up an application claiming the fourth post in
Economics in the College for provincialisation. However, by a representation
dated 31.08.2020, the petitioner had informed the Director of Higher Education,
Assam, that she was required to be considered against the second post and not
the fourth post for the subject of Economics.
11. By the order dated 05.02.2021, the services of the Private Respondents No.
6 and 7 were provincialised.
Another list was subsequently uploaded on the official website of the

Page No.# 7/21
Director of Higher Education, where the names of the incumbents, whose
services were not considered for provincialisation due to non-fulfilment of the
required criteria as per the Act of 2017, appeared. The name of the petitioner
appeared at Sl. No. 273 in the said list, and it is the case of the petitioner, which
the respondents do not dispute, that her claim for provincialisation had been
rejected on the ground that her case for the post of 4th teacher in the subject
could not be considered since the requisite number of students did not appear
in the final examination in the subject concerned.

12. Mr. J. Abedin, learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to different
annexures in the writ petition, has submitted that the case of the petitioner was
required to have been forwarded for provincialisation at the first go, under the
Act of 2011, along with Smt. Punya Gogoi, who had been provincialised as the
first Teacher in the College of Economics.
13. The learned counsel submits that, even if it is assumed, for the sake of
argument, that the consideration of the case of the petitioner under the 2011
Act had lost relevance since the Act itself had been declared to be
unconstitutional, the authorities in the respondent College were required to
have forwarded the name of the petitioner as the second Teacher in Economics
for consideration under the Act of 2017, keeping in view the fact that the
petitioner had joined her services in the year 1996, much prior to the
respondent nos. 6 and 7.
14. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the two teachers

Page No.# 8/21
whose names have been forwarded as qualified teachers under the Act of 2017
were required to have been considered for the third and fourth posts,
respectively, and not against the second and third posts. The learned counsel
for the petitioner has submitted that the authorities of the respondent College
and members of the Governing Body are related as family to the private
respondent No 7. Therefore, there was a conscious and concerted effort to
deprive the petitioner of the opportunity of provincialisation of services, not only
under the Act of 2011 but also under the Act of 2017, only to accommodate one
of the two private respondents, namely the respondent No.7.
15. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that appropriate
orders are required to be passed by this Court directing the respondent
authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for provincialisation of her
services as the second Teacher in Economics under the Act of 2017.
16 . The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the
respondents No. 6 and 7, did not fulfil the conditions of the Act of 2011 and
therefore, their names were forwarded as ineligible candidates, only to ensure
that their presence in the college is maintained in the records. The petitioner's
name was left out of the lists of both eligible and ineligible candidates to ensure
that the second post would not be filled until such time that the respondents
No. 6 and 7, attained the eligibility criteria and thereafter, their names could be
sponsored for the second and third posts, depriving the petitioner.
17 . Respondents in the Education Department have not filed any response to

Page No.# 9/21
the writ petition. During the hearing, it was submitted that since the allegations
have been levelled against the college authorities and the private respondents
for having acted in consortium to ensure that the name of the petitioner is not
sponsored, the State respondents were not required to contest the writ petition
by filing any affidavit. The learned Standing counsel has, however, submitted
that the respondent State had considered all persons whose names have been
sponsored as eligible for consideration for provincialisation, both under the Act
of 2011 and under the Act of 2017. The State respondents did not contest or
dispute the eligibility of the petitioner to be considered for provincialisation of
services under the Act of 2017. The submission made on behalf of the
petitioner that her case had been rejected under the Act of 2017 for the 4th
post only on the ground of non-fulfillment of the requirement of a minimum
number of students to be enrolled or to appear for final exams, has not been
denied by the State respondents.
18. The respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 have filed a joint affidavit-in-opposition. It
is stated in the affidavit-in-opposition that the petitioner had joined the
Dibrugarh City College, as it was then known, without UGC norms, with a
promise to acquire norms within a short span of time. It is stated that the
petitioner did not inform the College Authority about her certificates of
educational qualification or her upgradation of qualification in terms of the UGC
regulation from 1998 onwards. The College had received Government
concurrence in the year 2005, and since then, in order to engage the best

Page No.# 10/21
faculty, all appointments were made considering the UGC norms of 55% marks
in a master's degree.
19 . The assertion of the petitioner that she had passed her MA in Economics in
the year 1991 from Dibrugarh University with 54.63 marks has been doubted by
the respondents No.3, 4 and 5. It has been submitted that the dates reflected in
the different mark sheets do not give a clear picture. It has been further
submitted that there are no other credentials made available to the College
Authority about the educational qualification of the petitioner, and that she has
not submitted her alleged MA pass certificate of the year 1991 to the College
Authorities to date.
20. It has been submitted that the respondent No.6 had joined the College in
the year 2006 with a pass percentage of 55.38%, and she obtained her M.Phil
degree in the year 2009. It has been further submitted that the respondent
No.7 had joined the College on 08.11.2008 with a pass percentage mark of
59.50% and had subsequently obtained her M.Phil degree in the year 2009 and
had also qualified the State Level Eligibility Test. On the above basis, it has been
submitted by the respondents Nos 3, 4 and 5 that the respondents Nos 6 and 7
were required to be considered in the zone of the 2nd and the 3rd faculty
members in the particular subjects since they were qualified in terms of UGC
regulations.
21 . The respondents No.3, 4 and 5 have claimed that the petitioner did not
receive financial assistance in the manner it was received by the respondents

Page No.# 11/21
No. 6 and 7. It is the stand of the College that the faculty members who did not
have 55% or above in their MA examinations were not afforded financial
assistance, and the petitioner had never raised any grievance regarding the
non-receipt of the financial assistance.
22. In essence, it is the case of the respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 that the
respondents Nos. 6 and 7, when being sponsored in the year 2017, had the
requisite length of service to be considered for provincialization. However, the
petitioner could not be sponsored for provincialization since she did not deposit
the relevant requisite documents before the College Authorities in time. The
College Authorities have also relied upon the discrepancies in the mark sheets
and the other certificates submitted by the petitioner to show that there was a
difference in the names reflected in the certificates. The respondents No.3, 4
and 5 admit that under the Act of 2011, only the name of Ms. Punya Gogoi had
been sponsored as a faculty in the subject of Economics and that the names of
respondents No.6 and 7 were sponsored in the year 2017 as eligible candidates
for provincialization.

23. It is the case of the respondent No.6 that the petitioner was not qualified to
have been appointed initially into the college, as she did not fulfill the UGC
norms of having 55% in her MA examinations. It has been contended by the
respondent No.6 that, even if it is assumed that the petitioner had obtained her
MA degree in Economics with 55.08 marks in the year 2011, her tenure in the
College would be counted from the year 2011 only and in such circumstances,

Page No.# 12/21
she would stand junior to the respondents No.6 and 7. Therefore, respondents
No.6 and 7 would have a better claim to be considered for provincialization over
and above the petitioner. The respondent No.6 has admitted that the senior-
most lecturer had been sponsored for provincialization under the Act of 2011,
and under the Act of 2017, the services of the respondents Nos. 6 and 7 have
been provincialized.
24. On behalf of the respondent No.7, it has been submitted that the name of
the petitioner had not been sponsored under the 2011 Act since she did not
possess the requisite UGC norms at that point in time. It has been submitted
that respondent No.7 had cleared the State Level Eligibility Test in Economics as
per the mandate of the UGC regulations, 2010, in the year 2017. It has been
submitted that the service of the petitioner was not considered for
provincialization even under the Act of 2017 (as amended in 2018) since she did
not fulfill the requisite criteria under the Act of 2017.
25. To buttress their submission, the counsel for the respondent No.7 has
submitted that Section 4 of the Act of 2017 provided that for provincialization,
an incumbent must have a minimum educational and professional qualification
as laid down under the different acts, rules and regulations. By referring to the
UGC regulation of 2010, it has been submitted that the petitioner was not
eligible to be considered under the act of 2011 since she did not score 55%
marks at the master's degree level examination. It has been further submitted
that the petitioner did not qualify for the SLET/SET and therefore she did not

Page No.# 13/21
deserve to be considered for provincialization.
26. By referring to the contention of the petitioner that she had qualified the MA
degree with 55% marks in 2011, it is the case of the respondent No.7 that the
petitioner had not completed 6 years of continuous service as an eligible
candidate under the 2017 Act when the name of the respondent No.6 and 7
were sponsored and, therefore, there is no fault when the respondent college
did not sponsor the name of the petitioner for provincialization.
27. Elaborate arguments have been made on behalf of the contesting parties.
The dispute involved is within a narrow campus, i.e. whether the name of the
petitioner was required to have been sponsored by the College authorities for
consideration for provincialisation of her services as a second teacher in
economics, both under the Act of 2011 and the Act of 2017?
28. It has not been disputed by any of the parties that the petitioner had joined
her services in the college on 31.12.1996, and it is not disputed that she was
the second faculty member in the subject of economics at that time and has
continued as such. It is also not in dispute that the Government of Assam had
required a score of 54.5% in the Master's degree examination and above to be
rounded to 55% for eligibility for the post of Assistant Professors in Colleges at
the time when the petitioner had been appointed. It is not in dispute that had
the name of the petitioner been forwarded by the college authorities either
under the Act of 2011, along with the other teacher who was granted
provincialisation, the case of the petitioner would have received due

Page No.# 14/21
consideration. It is also not in dispute that had the name of the petitioner been
forwarded at the first instance under the Act of 2017, the different authorities
would have considered her eligibility under the Act of 2017. It is the assertion of
the college authorities and the private respondents, whose services had been
provincialised, that the petitioner lacked the eligibility to be considered for
provincialisation. In the opinion of this Court, that is a factor which had to be
left to the competent authorities empowered under the Act of 2017 to be
evaluated and decided. The grievance of the petitioner is basically that her
name had not been forwarded for consideration by the College authorities in
due time, and when it was actually forwarded, the condition regarding the
minimum number of students enrolled/appearing came into play, and she was
denied provincialisation. It is her case that had her name been forwarded in
due time, with her educational and professional qualifications being properly set
out, she would have been considered as the second teacher in the subject of
Economics, and the respondent number 7 would have faced her present fate of
being ineligible for provincialisation as a fourth teacher.

29. The Act of 2017 provides that teachers of a venture educational institution,
who do not possess the minimum educational or professional qualification, are
to be considered and provincialised as “Tutors” and in the event such tutors
acquire the qualifications under the relevant provisions of law within a certain
period of time, they would be considered for upgradation to the post of
‘Teacher'. The relevant provisions of the Act of 2017 are quoted below for ease

Page No.# 15/21
of reference:
(t) "teacher" means Teachers, Assistant Teachers, Classical
Section 2:
Teachers and also includes Lecturers, Assistant Professors, Associate Professors,
Professors, Principal, Vice-Principal, Demonstrator, Headmaster, Assistant
Headmaster, Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent and any person of the
teaching faculty working in the Venture Educational Institution having required
educational and professional qualification as per norms and standards fixed by
the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, National
Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993, University Grants Commission Act,
1956 and the relevant rules and regulations framed thereunder and any other
Act as the case may be, as applicable on the day of provincialisation and whose
services are provincialised under this Act in the post of teacher or in any other
post in the teaching faculty but, not as tutor under this Act;
(u) "tutor" means and includes Teachers, Assistant Teachers, Classical Teachers
and also includes Lecturers, Assistant Professors, Associate Professors,
Professors, Principal, VicePrincipal, Demonstrator, Headmaster, Assistant
Headmaster, Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent in a provincialised
educational institution under this Act who are not eligible for provincialisation of
their services and whose services cannot be provincialised in the post of Teacher
under this Act due to lack of his/her educational and professional qualifications
required as per the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act,
2009, National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993, University Grants
Commission Act, 1956 and the relevant rules and regulations framed thereunder

and any other Act, as the case may be, as applicable on the date of
provincialisation, however, his/her service is provincialised as tutor with separate
terms and conditions of service, to be notified by the competent Administrative
Department:
Provided that a tutor shall not be eligible to hold the post of Professors,

Page No.# 16/21
Principal, Vice-Principal, Headmaster, Assistant Headmaster, Superintendent,
Assistant Superintendent, as the case may be, in an educational institution
provincialised under this Act;
Section 6(1) The services of teachers in a Venture Educational Institution from
the Primary level up to the Degree Level, shall be considered for provincialisation
in the post of teachers or relevant teaching faculty in appropriate nomenclature,
as the case may be, subject to fulfillment of the eligibility criteria relating to
educational and professional qualifications as laid down under the following Acts,
Rules and Regulations:-
(a) The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
and its Rules;
(b) The National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 and its
Regulations in force at the time of provincialisation of services.
(c) The Assam Secondary Education (Provincialised) Service Rules,
2003, as amended in 2012;
(d)The University Grants Commission Act, 1956 and University Grants
Commission Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of
Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and
Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education, 2010,
framed thereunder, as the case may be.
(2) The services of a teaching employee in a Venture Educational Institution
shall be considered for provincialisation as teacher only if they have the requisite
academic and professional qualifications prescribed under the relevant Acts,
Rules or Regulations as mentioned in sub-section (1) of this section which are
applicable for the time being in force, otherwise their services shall be
provincialized as tutor.
(3) In case of teachers for special subjects like Sanskrit, Arabic, Hindi, Craft
Teacher, Music Teacher, and any other Classical Teachers, the qualification should

Page No.# 17/21
be as per the qualification prescribed by the relevant statutory Rules of the State
Government in force.
Section 7(1) The tutor must acquire the prescribed educational and
professional qualifications within a period of five years from the date of
publication of the order of provincialisation of services of the teachers and or
tutors of the concerned Venture Educational Institutions in the Official Gazette
and after acquirement of required qualification, they shall be upgraded to the
post of teacher in appropriate cadre.
(2) If such tutor fail to acquire such prescribed qualifications within a period of
five years from the date of publication of the order of provincialisation in the
Official Gazette, their cases shall not be considered for up-gradation to the post
of teacher after the lapse of a period of five years from the date of publication of
provincialisation order in the Official Gazette and they shall continue to function
as tutor as per same terms and conditions which were applicable to them before
provincialisation of the concerned Venture Educational Institution.

30. On the one hand, the petitioner has cried foul, alleging that the respondent
authorities at the helm of affairs in the College had, acting in consortium with
the respondents Nos. 6 and 7, withheld the name of the petitioner when it was
required to be forwarded ahead of the respondent nos 6 and 7. On the other
hand, the respondents in the College have asserted that her name had not been
forwarded ahead of the respondents 6 and 7, since either she did not possess
the requisite qualification or since she did not deposit the requisite certificates
of her qualifications.
31. Though this Court, in the absence of any stand taken by the State

Page No.# 18/21
respondents, would be loath to entertain the allegations raised by the contesting
parties, it is noticed that the assertion of the petitioner, that her case deserved
to be placed before the concerned authorities for provincialisation, if not prior
to, at least along with the respondents no. 6 and 7, has to be answered in the
affirmative. Had her case been put forward along with the respondents 6 and 7
at the relevant time, it would have been upon the District Level Scrutiny
Committee, the State Level Scrutiny Committee and the State Government in
the concerned department to decide as to whether the petitioner deserved to be
provincialised at all, and if so, whether she deserved the post of teacher or a
tutor. In my considered opinion, the petitioner has suffered an injustice when
her case had not been put up before the appropriate authorities along with the
respondents Nos 6 and 7, leading to a complete non-consideration of her case
along with the aforesaid respondents. The said injustice deserves to be
remedied by affording an appropriate and equal opportunity to the petitioner to
be considered for provincialisation, if not ahead of, at least along with the
respondents no. 6 and 7.

32. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is
directed to file an appropriate appeal/representation before the Director of
Higher Education within a period of 15 days from the date of this order,
accompanied by all relevant documents which she would rely upon. Upon
receipt of the appeal/representation, the Director of Higher Education shall
initiate immediate steps to ensure that her case is considered in accordance

Page No.# 19/21
with law, in the manner it would have been considered in the event her
particulars had been forwarded along with the application dated 19.6.2017, by
which the particulars of the respondents nos. 6 and 7 had been forwarded. The
consideration for the petitioner would be as the second teacher of the
institution, and not as the fourth/additional teacher of the institution. It is made
clear that the consideration of the petitioner shall be without reference to the
earlier rejection of her case, since on that occasion, she had been considered
for an additional post and had been rejected due to a smaller number of
students appearing in the final exam.
33. In the event the petitioner is found to be eligible for provincialisation, either
as a teacher or as a tutor, the same shall be given effect to from the date from
which the other teachers of the college had been allowed to enjoy the benefits
of provincialisation pursuant to the list dated 5.2.2021 issued by the Director of
Higher Education, Assam. The entire exercise of consideration of the petitioner
for provincialisation shall be completed within a period of 45 days from the date
of receipt of the appeal/representation filed by the petitioner.

34. Further effects of provincialisation of respondents no. 6 and 7 had been
kept in abeyance by this Court through the order dated 1.11.2021. The said
interim orders shall remain operative till a decision is arrived at by the Director
of Higher Education, Assam, with regard to the provincialisation of the services
of the petitioner. In the event the petitioner is found eligible for provincialisation,
the Director of Higher Education, Assam, would be at liberty to cause a

Page No.# 20/21
reconsideration of the cases of the respondents no 6 and 7, if so required.
35. By the order dated 1.11.2021, the Director of Higher Education, Assam, was
required to file an affidavit and was also required to produce the records
enumerated in the order. The relevant portion of the order is reproduced
below :
“ 5. On a prima facie case being made out on the violation of the legal right of
the petitioner whose claim for provincialisation was ignored and considering the
balance of convenience and the irreparable loss that the petitioner may suffer,
further effects of provincialisation be not given to the respondents No.6 and 7
until further orders.
6. It has been brought to the notice of the Court that the present Principal of
the Nandalal Borgohain City College is Dr. Sanjibananda Borgohain.
7. The President of the governing body is stated to be Smti. Jyoti Borgohain.
The vice principal of the college is Dr. Manoshi Gogoi Borgahain who is the wife
of the Principal Dr. Sanjibananda Borgohain.
8. The respondent No.7 is stated to be the sister of the vice principal Dr.
Manoshi Gogoi Borgohain or in other words sister in law of the Principal.
9. The Director of Higher Education shall file an affidavit on or before
09/11/2021 as to whether the aforesaid information recorded is correct
information or not. Depending on the affidavit to be filed, further orders shall
be passed.
10. The Director shall also procure the original records from the college as
regards the appointment of the petitioner, the respondents No.6 and 7 as well
as the service particulars of the lecturer/professor in Economics sent by the
principal of the college for the purpose of provincialisation under the Act 2017.”
36. The Director of Higher Education, Assam, shall therefore also be under the

Page No.# 21/21
responsibility to cause an enquiry, independent of the consideration of the case
of the petitioner, into the allegations recorded in the order dated 1.11.2021 and
take a decision as to whether the alleged family connections had any role to
play in the College authorities forwarding the name of the respondents no 6 and
7 ahead of the petitioner for consideration for provincialisation. The enquiry
shall be conducted affording due opportunity of hearing to all involved persons.
Further orders as deemed appropriate in accordance with law shall be passed by
the Director of Higher Education, Assam, on the culmination of the enquiry.

37. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant