AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Leave granted.

2. Vide Order/Record of Proceedings dated 18.11.2025, we had allowed these appeals, mentioning that a separate Signed Order would follow. The instant Judgment completes that chain.

7 BACKGROUND:

3. The appellants, in the present batch of matters, are aggrieved by the common Final Judgment and Order dated 04.10.2024 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Judgment’) [2024 SCC OnLine Gau 1601 | (2024) 5 Gau LT 689], passed by a learned Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’) in Writ Petition (Civil) No.8148/2018 and connected matters, viz. Writ Petitions (Civil) No.7955/2019, 2225/2022, 6409/2021, 6989/2021 and 6945/2021, whereby the High Court, despite upholding the contentions of the appellants and recording findings in their favour on each and every issue, including their eligibility, declined to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent-State and its authorities to pass necessary orders for provincialisation of the services of the appellants, who were/are serving as Music Teachers in the various provincialised schools in Assam. Instead of granting relief, the High Court relegated them to pursue such remedies as may be available in law, leaving open the window to seek appropriate relief before the State Government/any other appropriate forum, as permissible under the law. SUBMISSIONS:

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants submitted that the present cases are a clear-cut scenario of an arbitrary and discriminatory approach adopted by the State authorities in not provincialising the appellants’ services, despite the appellants having met and cleared all levels of eligibility and scrutiny. It was submitted that, under the Impugned Judgment, there are categorical findings on facts as well as on law, which establish that the case of the appellants ought to have been allowed. Still, the Division Bench, at the close of the Impugned Judgment, has relegated them to the authorities concerned. What really bothers the appellants, contended learned Senior Counsel, is that the State Government, in effect, has been empowered to take a fresh decision, meaning that the entire clock will be turned back and the matter will have to be reconsidered de novo. It was urged that the same is impermissible at this stage, when the appellants’ rights have already fully crystallised.

5. It was further submitted that the Assam Venture Educational Institutions (Provincialisation of Services) Act, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2011’), as published in The Assam Gazette, clearly stipulated that for provincialisation of ‘Venture Educational Institutions’1 and their employees, scrutiny 1 Section 2(t) of the Act of 2011 defines the same as follows:

2 Section 2(g) of the Act of 2011 defines the same as follows:

practice on their part, the right so accrued to these Venture Educational Institutions and their teaching/ non-teaching staff for provincialisation under Act of 2011, in our opinion, could not have been denied to them merely on the ground that there was delay in communicating the grant of permission/recognition/ affiliation, as the case may be, by the concerned authority.

144. It would be relevant to mention herein that Section 24 of the Act of 2017, which is the repealing provision of the Act of 2011, does not lay down that the rights and privileges that had accrued upon the Venture Educational Institutions under the Act of 2011 would stand extinguished with retrospective effect. Rather, Section 24 protects all action taken for provincialisation of services of teachers prior to 23.09.2016. Such action, in our considered opinion, would also mean and include actions taken by the Departmental Authorities in processing the application submitted by the respective Venture Institutions prior to 01.01.2006 seeking permission/affiliation/ permission/concurrence as well as the decisions and recommendations of the District Scrutiny Committees, if any, recommending provincialisation of the services of the leaching and non-teaching staffs of the different Venture Educational Institutions. We are of the view that those employees, in 13 whose favour, recommendations were made by the Scrutiny Committee had a vested right for their claims to be taken to its logical conclusion under the Act of 2011. As such, such vested rights of those employees could not have been taken away by the subsequent enactment of the Act of 2017.

194. We have already noted here-in-above indicating that we are not entering into adjudication in respect of any question of fact involved in the individual writ petitions in this batch of petitions leading to passing of separate order(s) granting or rejecting the prayers made there-in. Therefore, in the light of the determination made herein above, it would now be open for the respective petitioners to seek appropriate legal remedy, before the appropriate forum, as may be permissible under the law, if so advised.’ (emphasis supplied)

14. From the above passages, the relevant issues for determination, both factual as well as legal, have, in fact, been duly considered in extenso by the High Court, based upon the material available on record and the official communications of the respondent-State, which have not been controverted. We endorse the above- returned findings of the High Court.

15. Now, Paragraphs 7 and 9 of the Impugned Judgment assume significance. They read as below:

16. In view of the aforenoted extract, we find that learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants in the High Court had, during the course of arguments, also sought the issuance of a writ of mandamus. However, the High Court seemingly was under the impression that no writ of mandamus had been prayed for/pleaded in the underlying Writ Petition.

17. We find that amongst the prayers made/reliefs sought in Writ Petition (Civil) No.8148/2018 in the High Court, Prayer/Relief No.4 reads as under:

18. In the circumstances, when findings by the High Court are clearly in favour of the appellants, we have no hesitation in holding that the appellants have made out a case for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the State and its authorities, in terms of the prayer made in the Writ Petition supra.

19. Be it noted, the categorical findings recorded in the Impugned Judgment, quoted hereinbefore, have not been challenged by the State-authorities and hence, the State-respondents have accepted the same.

20. Moreover, nothing contrary has been brought on record to indicate that, at any point of time, there was any controversy/dispute with regard to the veracity of the list of the 214 persons, taken note of in the Impugned Judgment.

21. The above apart, even if it be assumed that no prayer for grant of a writ of mandamus was made, even orally or in pleadings, it was open for the High Court to mould and grant the relief. At the cost of repetition, the High Court had, in the present cases, returned conclusive findings in the appellants’ favour. The High Court was in seisin of writ petitions filed invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh 16 High Court, speaking through one of us (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) in Mangalagiri Textile Mills Private Limited v State Bank of India , 2022 SCC OnLine AP 525, considered the power to mould relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, including a situation where the appropriate prayer/relief was not specifically pleaded for, and held:

However, in the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner did urge us to pass an order that would subserve justice.

48. In Ramesh Chandra Sankla v. Vikram Cement , (2008) 14 SCC 58, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to state:

xxx (emphasis supplied)’ (underlining in original; our emphasis in bold)

22. More recently, In Vashist Narayan Kumar v State of Bihar , (2024) 11 SCC 785, it was opined that a ‘… writ court has the power to mould the relief. Justice cannot be forsaken on the altar of technicalities.’ 18

23. Accordingly, these appeals stand allowed. The Impugned Judgment stands modified by setting aside Paragraph 194 thereof. A writ in the nature of mandamus is hereby issued to the State-authorities concerned, in terms of Prayer No.4 supra of the Writ Petition.

24. The matter(s) being quite old, the necessary consequential action(s) shall be completed by the State and its authorities within a maximum period of three months, reckoned from today.

25. It goes without saying that the provincialisation will take effect from 01.01.2013.

26. Pending applications stand disposed of. However, we do not propose to pass any order as to costs, leaving parties to bear their own.

………………….......................J. [AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH] ………………….......................J. [VIPUL M. PANCHOLI] NEW DELHI 18TH NOVEMBER, 2025 19