Vested rights to provincialisation under the 2011 Act survive subsequent legislation and its declaration as unconstitutional.

The petitioner was appointed as a Music Teacher at Dubi High School on January 25, 1998

Following the enactment of the Assam Educational (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011, the District Scrutiny Committee (DSC) recommended her for provincialisation

However, her name was excluded from the final provincialisation order dated August 20, 2013, which covered other teachers in her school

After the 2011 Act was declared unconstitutional in Chandan Kumar Neog v. State of Assam (2016), the State enacted the 2017 Act.

The petitioner filed WP(C) No. 7596/2022 seeking provincialisation under the 2011 Act effective from January 1, 2013

On April 22, 2024, the High Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to submit a representation to the Director of Secondary Education for consideration under the 2017 Act

The petitioner sought a review of this order, asserting a vested right to provincialisation under the 2011 Act based on recent judicial precedents

1. Whether the order dated April 22, 2024, suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record due to the non-consideration of vested rights under the 2011 Act

2. Whether the recommendations made by the Scrutiny Committee under the 2011 Act (prior to it being struck down) entitle the petitioner to provincialisation despite the subsequent enactment of the 2017 Act

The Court primarily considered Sections 6 and 10(4) of the Assam Educational (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011, which govern the recommendation and notification process for the provincialisation of teachers

It relied on the Division Bench judgment in Mohar Ali Sheikh v. State of Assam (2024) 5 GLT 689, which established that recommendations by Scrutiny Committees under the 2011 Act created vested rights that cannot be extinguished by the 2017 Act

Furthermore, the Court applied the Supreme Court’s ruling in Nur Islam and Ors. v. State of Assam [2025 INSC 1506], which issued a writ of mandamus for the provincialisation of Music Teachers recommended under the 2011 Act effective from January 1, 2013

The review jurisdiction was exercised under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC

The Court evaluated whether the petitioner's exclusion from provincialisation in 2013 was legally sustainable given that she met the criteria (serving since 1998) and was recommended by the DSC

While the respondents argued that the 2011 Act was non-est from inception and a subsequent change in law is not a ground for review, the Court noted that the specific issue regarding the "vested rights" of Music Teachers was pending before the Division Bench and the Supreme Court during the original proceedings

The Court observed that the Supreme Court in Nur Islam had already identified a list of 214 Music Teachers whose provincialisation was mandated under the 2011 Act despite the Chandan Kumar Neog judgment

Consequently, the Court found that failing to consider these developments and the "vested right" principle in the order dated April 22, 2024, constituted an error requiring a review to determine if the petitioner was similarly situated to the successful appellants in the Nur Islam case

It held that the petitioner’s claim necessitated re-examination in light of the Division Bench and Supreme Court rulings regarding vested rights under the 2011 Act

The Court directed the Registry to restore WP(C) No. 7596/2022 to its original file for a fresh hearing on admission