SHIV CHETRY Vs. STATE OF ASSAM AND 10 ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B.P. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S.M.T. Chistie, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 being the authorities under the Secondary Education Department, Government of Assam as well as Mr. I Alom, learned counsel for the respondents no. 3 and 4 being the NCTE.

(2.) The 23 (twenty three) petitioners herein are subject teachers in different Senior Secondary Schools/Higher Secondary Schools in the various districts of the State and by the order dtd. 4/2/2021 of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam their respective services were provincialised as tutors.

(3.) Under Sec. 2(u) of the Assam Education (Provincialisation of Services of Teachers and Re-Organisation of Educational Institutions) Act, 2017 (in short, the Act of 2017) a tutor is defined to mean and include Teachers, Assistant Teachers, Classical Teachers, Lecturers, Assistant Professors, Associate Professors, Professors, Principal, Vice-Principal, Demonstrator, Headmaster, Assistant Headmaster, Superintendent, Assistant Superintendent in a provincialised educational institution under the Act of 2017 who are not eligible for provincialisation of their services and whose services cannot be provincialisation against the post of teacher under the Act of 2017 because of lack of educational and professional qualification prescribed under 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, as the case may be. In other words, we have to understand that a person whose service was provincialisation in the aforesaid manner, but such person does not have the requisite qualification for a teacher, his/her service is provincialised as a tutor.