WP(C) 4714/2007 BEFORE HON’BLR MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. P.D. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S .K. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department. 2. The petitioner claiming herself to be a dropped teacher, has filed this writ petition for a direction to the respondents to regularize her service as As sistant Teacher in the particular school called No.2 Bamun Pukhuri Primary Schoo l with retrospective effect with all consequential benefits. 3. According to the petitioner, she was appointed by the Managing Committee of the school as per the resolution adopted in its meeting held on 5.6.1994. T he petitioner joined the school on 5.6.1994 itself. Certain documents have been annexed to the writ petition to show that the petitioner in fact, was appointed by the Managing Committee of the school and categorizing her as dropped teacher. Certain correspondences were made urging the authorities to regularize her serv ice. The petitioner has also placed reliance on the Annexure-6 judgment and ord er dated 1.9.2003 passed in a batch of writ petitions, one of which is Civil Rul e No.1571/1998 (Jiban Chandra Deka v. State of Assam & Ors.). 4. By the aforesaid judgment, the direction was issued to consider the case of the dropped teachers as per the policy guidelines adopted by the State Gover nment. 5. The petitioner has annexed only the typed copies of the documents pertai ning to her appointment by the Managing Committee of the school. This Court by o rder dated 10.9.2007 requested the learned counsel for the petitioner to produce the originals of the same. Mr. Nair, learned counsel for the petitioner submit s that the petitioner has misplaced the original documents. 6. Mr. S.K. Das, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department, referring to the provisions of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialization) Act, 197 7 and the Rules framed there-under, submits that since the petitioner did not h ave two years of continuous service before provincialization of the school, she cannot claim regularization of her service inasmuch as she did not acquire statu s of a dropped teacher. It would be pertinent to mention here that the school wa s provincialized in 1995 (1.1.1995) i.e. after about 6 months of appointment of the petitioner by the Managing Committee of the school. 7. Rule 3 of the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialization) Rules, 1977 provides for retention of services of those teaches, who had to their credit at least two years of continuous service immediately preceding taking over of the school. The rule further provides for retention of the services of such teachers , subject to the condition that the ratio of students and teachers demands the s ame. 8. Apart from the aforesaid rules, the Government of Assam in the Education Department has also formulated the guidelines vide order dated 13.1.2003. As pe r the said guidelines also, the incumbent will have to have two years of continu ous service preceding provincialization of the school. 9. In the instant case, the petitioner was appointed on 5.6.1994 and the s chool was provincialized with effect from 1.1.1995. Thus, admittedly she did no t have the requisite length of service so as to claim provincialization of her s ervice. Further, as per the submissions made by Mr. Das, learned Standing Couns el, Education Department, the student-teacher ration also does not demand provin cialization of service of the petitioner. 10. Apart from the above, the writ petition is also hit by principles of del ay and lashes. The school was provincialized way back in 1995. The writ petitio n was filed in the year 2007 i.e. after 12 years of provincialization of the sch ool. No explanation has been furnished as to why the petitioner approached this Court after long 12 years. 11. For what has been noticed above, I do not find any merit in the writ pet ition and consequently, it is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own co sts.