Service deemed provincialised by operation of law despite subsequent repeal of the provincialisation statute.

The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher at Uttar Ghunimari L.P. School on 15.07.2004 and joined on 18.07.2004

The school was provincialised effective 01.01.2013 under the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 ("Act of 2011")

While two posts were created, the petitioner’s name was omitted due to a clerical error by the District Scrutiny Committee (DSC), which mistakenly recommended one "Mogol Hussain" instead

Although the DSC later rectified the mistake, the Act of 2011 was struck down by the High Court on 23.09.2016

The petitioner’s claim was rejected by a speaking order dated 01.10.2024 on the grounds that her name did not appear in the DISE (District Information System for Education) data for 2011-12, a requirement under the 2017 Act

Principal reliance was placed on Section 4(1) of the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011, which creates a legal fiction of "deemed provincialisation" for employees of eligible institutions who have completed seven years of service

The Court also applied Section 24 of the Act of 2017 (Repeal and Saving), which protects the status of employees provincialised prior to 23.09.2016

The Court relied on judicial precedents in Dilip Das v. State of Assam (WP(C) 6804/2017) and Sailendra Nath Sarma v. State of Assam (WP(C) 3499/2014), establishing that rights accrued by operation of law under the 2011 Act remain valid despite the statute being struck down.

The Court observed that the school was provincialised in 2013 while the Act of 2011 was in force, and a post for an Assistant Teacher was specifically created but left vacant due to an admitted clerical error by the DSC

Since the petitioner was appointed in 2004, she had completed the mandatory seven years of service by the time the 2011 Act was notified (05.09.2011), thereby fulfilling the eligibility criteria under Section 3

The Court reasoned that under Section 4(1) of the 2011 Act, the petitioner’s service was "deemed" provincialised by operation of law automatically; therefore, no further administrative order was strictly required to effectuate her status

The Court rejected the State’s application of "DISE criteria" under the 2017 Act, noting that such criteria were absent in the 2011 Act and that the petitioner’s rights had already crystallized before the 2011 Act was struck down

The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned speaking order dated 01.10.2024 was set aside. The Court issued a writ of mandamus directing Respondent No. 3 to consider the petitioner’s case under the Act of 2011 and, upon verification of eligibility under Section 3, issue a formal provincialisation order effective from the date the school was originally provincialised