Seniority justifies provincialisation as a Tutor notwithstanding a junior's superior educational and professional qualifications.

The petitioner, a Science Graduate with a Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.), was appointed as a Graduate Science Teacher by the School Managing Committee of Kochua Gaon M.E. Madrassa on February 11, 2008

Respondent No. 7 was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the same school on June 12, 1992, possessing only HSLC (Science) qualifications

Following the enactment of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017, the services of Respondent No. 7 were provincialised as "Tutor (Science)" via an order dated February 5, 2021

The petitioner challenged this order, contending that his superior educational and professional qualifications made him the rightful candidate for provincialisation over Respondent No. 7, who lacked the requisite qualifications of a "Teacher" under the Act

1. Whether the provincialisation of Respondent No. 7 as a "Tutor" was illegal or in violation of Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act of 2017 given his lack of graduate and professional qualifications

2. Whether the Act of 2017 mandates that preference be given to candidates with higher qualifications for provincialisation as a "Tutor"

3. Whether there is a distinct legal difference between the qualifications required for the post of "Teacher" and "Tutor" under the Act of 2017

The court primarily applied the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-organization of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017.

Section 2(t) defines a "Teacher" as one possessing required educational and professional qualifications as per RTE and NCTE norms

Section 2(u) defines a "Tutor" as an individual not eligible for provincialisation as a "Teacher" due to lack of such qualifications, but whose services are provincialised with separate terms

Section 6 stipulates qualifications for "Teachers," while Section 7 allows "Tutors" a five-year grace period from the date of provincialisation to acquire the prescribed qualifications for upgradation to "Teacher" status

The court also referenced the Notification dated March 5, 2021, which outlines that Tutors assist Teachers and remain on a fixed salary unless they upgrade their qualifications

The court reasoned that the Act of 2017 creates a clear statutory distinction between "Teachers" and "Tutors"

While a "Teacher" must possess a graduation degree and professional training (D.El.Ed.) at the time of provincialisation, the category of "Tutor" was specifically designed for those lacking these credentials

The court noted that Respondent No. 7, appointed in 1992, was significantly senior to the petitioner, who was appointed in 2008

Under Section 7, a Tutor is legally permitted to be provincialised based on basic qualifications, provided they acquire the necessary professional qualifications within five years

The court found that the Act does not contain any provision mandating that a person with higher qualifications (like the petitioner) must be preferred for provincialisation as a Tutor over a senior employee

Consequently, since Respondent No. 7 was provincialised only as a "Tutor" and not a "Teacher," his lack of a degree at the time of the order did not constitute a violation of the Act

The court clarified that higher qualifications do not grant an automatic right to provincialisation as a Tutor over a senior staff member under the 2017 Act

The petition was dismissed, and the impugned order dated February 5, 2021, passed by the Director of Elementary Education, Assam, was upheld

No costs were awarded