Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010207952025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/5470/2025 ZIAUR RAHMAN S/O- LATE GIAS UDDIN, VILL. AND P.O. ALITANGANI, P.S. JURIA, DIST. NAGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06. 2:THE DIRECTOR EDUCATION (SECONDARY) DEPARTMENT KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19. 3:THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER NAGAON ASSAM 4:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS NDC NAGAON. 5:THE PRINCIPAL ALITANGANI OSMANIA HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL VILL. AND P.O. ALITANGANI DIST. NAGAON ASSAM PIN- 782124 Page No.# 2/4 Advocate for the Petitioner : MS S S ZIA, Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, SEC. EDU. BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER Date : 22.09.2025 Heard Ms. S.S. Zia, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. D. Mushahary, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4; and Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned Addl. Senior Government Advocate for the respondent No. 3. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the hearing report, dated 02.06.2025, on the ground that the same was done without giving notice to petitioner and also without giving him an opportunity of being heard. 3. Ms. Zia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, along with one Rukan Uddin Ahmed, were nominated against the post of the Vice President and the President, respectively of the School Management and Development Committee (SMDC) of Alitangani Osmania Higher Secondary School, Nagaon, vide communication dated 08.09.2022, and the said nomination of Rukan Uddin Ahmed was, however, put to challenge by one Ziaul Islam, by filing one writ petition, being WP(C) No. 7192/2022, and this Court, vide order dated 24.01.2024, had set aside the nomination of the said Rukan Uddin Ahmed with a direction to the authorities to initiate fresh process for nomination against the post of President of SMDC of the said school. Ms. Zia also submits that thereafter, another writ petition, being WP(C) No. 650/2023, Page No.# 3/4 was filed challenging the nomination of both Rukan Uddin Ahmed as well as the petitioner for their nomination as President and Vice President of SMDC, vide the aforesaid communication dated 08.09.2022, but the said writ petition was disposed of, vide order dated 15.02.2024, granting liberty to the petitioner therein to file a representation before the respondent No. 2 against the nomination of the petitioner as Vice President of the SMDC, and in the event of such representation being filed, the respondent No. 2 shall pass speaking order after providing due opportunity to the respondent No. 6 therein i.e. the present petitioner. Ms. Zia further submits that the respondent No. 2 had issued the impugned hearing report dated 02.06.2025 (Annexure-11), holding that the petitioner to be lack of requisite qualification for holding the post of Vice President of the school without giving him any opportunity of hearing as directed by this Court, vide order dated 15.02.2024, in WP(C) No. 650/2023, but in fact, the petitioner is a graduate and he is eligible for holding the post of Vice President of the SMDC. Ms. Zia also submits that since the impugned report, dated 02.06.2025, is prepared without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner as directed by this Court, the same is arbitrary and illegal, and therefore, it is contended to set aside the same. 4. Per contra, Ms. Mushahary, learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 after obtaining instruction, has apprised this Court that the matter may be remanded to the respondent No. 2, to consider calling the petitioner for hearing as directed by this Court, vide order dated 15.02.2024, in WP(C) No. 650/2023, and on such remand being made, the respondent No. 2 will issue notice to the petitioner and provide him an opportunity of being heard. 5. Ms. Zia, learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that she has no objection in the event of the matter being remanded to the respondent Page No.# 4/4 No. 2, for further consideration after giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. 6. Taking note of the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, and as agreed upon, this Court is inclined to remand the matter to the respondent No. 2, for affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, after issuing notice to him, and pass a speaking order in terms of the direction passed by this Court, dated 15.02.2024, in WP(C) No. 650/2023. 7. The aforementioned exercise has to be carried out within a period four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondent No. 2 within a week from today. 8. In terms of above, this writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant