Page No.# 1/8 GAHC010244082024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/6175/2024 MONOWER ALI SK. AND 9 ORS. S/O- LATE AMZAD ALI BEPARI, VILL.- UCHITA, P.O. MATERJHAR, P.S. GOLAKGANJ, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM, PIN- 783334. 2: SAMINA BIBI W/O- AYNAL HOQUE VILL.- UCHITA P.O. MATERJHAR P.S. GOLAKGANJ DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783334. 3: FATEMA KHATUN W/O- EJAJUL HOQUE VILL.- UCHITA P.O. MATERJHAR P.S. GOLAKGANJ DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783334. 4: MINJUMA KHATUN W/O- AMJAD ALI VILL.- UCHITA P.O. MATERJHAR P.S. GOLAKGANJ DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783334. 5: ABDUL HOSSEN S/O- AMED ALI VILL.- UCHITA P.O. MATERJHAR Page No.# 2/8 P.S. GOLAKGANJ DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783334. 6: FIROZA KHATUN W/O- JAMINUR KHAN VILL.- NORTH RAIPUR PT-I P.O. AND P.S. GOLAKGANJ DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783334. 7: MOFIDA KHATUN W/O- HAMIDUL KHAN VILL.- NORTH RAIPUR PT-I P.O. AND P.S. GOLAKGANJ DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783334. 8: NUR ISLAM SK. S/O- SAMSER ALI VILL.- UCHITA P.O. MATERJHAR P.S. GOLAKGANJ DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783334. 9: MD. SAHIDUL HOQUE @ SAHIDUR RAHMAN S/O- SAYED ALI VILL.- UCHITA P.O. MATERJHAR P.S. GOLAKGANJ DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783334. 10: AWAL HOQUE S/O- ABUL HUSSEIN VILL.- UCHITA P.O. MATERJHAR P.S. GOLAKGANJ DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783334 VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 4 ORS TO BE REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF SCHOOL EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. Page No.# 3/8 2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19. 3:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER DHUBRI DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783301. 4:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER GOLAKGANJ P.O. GOLAKGANJ DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783334. 5:THE NO. 699 UCHITA L.P. SCHOOL UCHITA P.S. GOLAKGANJ DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM PIN- 783334 TO BE REPRESENTED BY MEMBER SECRETARY-CUM-HEADMASTER NAMELY ABDUL HAI PRODHANI Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R ISLAM, S BEGUM,T TALUKDAR Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA ORDER Date : 07.04.2025 Heard Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. S. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel for the Elementary Education Department. 2. It is the case of the petitioners that in the general meeting held on 25.11.2023, in respect of No. 699 Uchita L.P. School, the new School Management Committee (in short, ‘SMC’) consisting of the petitioners herein was constituted, where the petitioner No. 1 was the President. The formation of Page No.# 4/8 the newly constituted SMC was sent to the District Elementary Education Officer (in short, DEEO), Dhubri, for approval. 3. In the meantime, one Shalom Bepari submitted a complaint on 28.11.2023, stating that the SMC had been constituted in violation of the Rules. 4. Thereafter, the DEEO, Dhubri issued a communication dated 29.11.2023 to the Block Development Education Officer (in short, BEEO), Golokganj, the CRCC, the Head Teacher of No. 699 Uchita L.P. School and the complainant, to have a hearing on 30.12.2023. Thereafter, the DEEO, Dhubri gave it’s approval to the newly constituted SMC on 05.01.2024 comprising the petitioners herein, in terms of Rule 13(3)(v) of the Assam Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the 2011 Rules). 5. The said Shalom Bepari once again filed a complaint on 02.02.2024 before the DEEO, Dhubri and a hearing was held on 17.02.2024. Thereafter, the DEEO, Dhubri, vide order dated 21.02.2024 and till the outcome of the inquiry report, kept in abeyance the letter dated 05.01.2024, by which the approval for the SMC had been accorded. 6. The order dated 21.02.2024 also stated that till the outcome of the inquiry report was made, an ad-hoc SMC was constituted for three months, for running the school administration. 7. The petitioners’ counsel submits that once an SMC has been constituted and given approval by the DEEO, in terms of Rule 13(3)(v) of the 2011 Rules, an ad-hoc SMC cannot be constituted unless the earlier SMC is dissolved or is Page No.# 5/8 suspended. Further, the petitioners have not received any information till date, with regard to the outcome of the inquiry made with regard to the formation of the petitioners’ SMC, so as to allow the continued extension of the ad-hoc SMC. 8. Ms. S. Chutia, learned counsel for the Elementary Education Department submits that though the DEEO had approved the newly constituted petitioners’ SMC, an ad-hoc SMC had been constituted due to a complaint being filed against the petitioners’ SMC on 02.02.2024. After a hearing was held, the DEEO kept in abeyance the approval letter dated 05.01.2024 and asked the BEEO, Golakganj to enquire into the matter regarding the formation of the petitioners’ SMC. She submits that in terms of the report of the BEEO, Golakganj, a hearing was conducted on 04.10.2024, where the petitioner along with the Head Teacher of the school and the concerned CRCC were present. It was thereafter found that the petitioners’ SMC had not been constituted as per the guidelines. As such, it was decided that till a new SMC was formed, an ad-hoc SMC would run the school. 9. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 10. As can be seen from the submissions made by the parties and the averments made in the pleadings of the parties, the formation of the petitioners’ SMC had been approved, in terms of Rule 13(3)(v) of the 2011 Rules. 11. Rule 13(3)(v) of the 2011 Rules states as follows:- “13(3)(v) The District Elementary Education Officer, after examining the Page No.# 6/8 resolution, shall approve the name of one person as President and the other person as the Vice-President out of the names of two persons selected/elected by the parents/guardians for the purpose, considering the comparative educational qualification, aptitude and willingness to work for the betterment of the school of these two persons, along with the name of members as per resolution adopted in the meeting within three days from the date of receipt of the resolution and provide a copy of the approval order in Form No. IV to the concerned SMC” 12. The letter dated 20.09.2024 issued by the BEEO, Golakganj to the DEEO, Dhubri is to the effect that as per his inquiry, the petitioners’ SMC had not been constituted as per proper Government guidelines and as such, a request had been made to take necessary action as per the inquiry report, so as to solve the problem of the school. 13. The DEEO, Dhubri thereafter issued an order dated 22.10.2024, whereby it directed the BEEO, Golokganj to instruct the Head Teacher-cum- Member Secretary of No. 699 Uchita L.P. School to constitute a regular SMC of the school within 3 months, as the further extension of the ad-hoc committee would not be made. It is interesting to note that the petitioners’ SMC had been approved on 05.01.2024. However, 1 and ½ months later, the petitioners’ SMC has been kept in abeyance. On the other hand, the ad-hoc SMC, which had been formed, vide order dated 23.02.2024, is functioning till date by giving extensions. 14. On considering the above impugned letter dated 22.10.2024, it is quite clear that a new SMC is sought to be constituted without dissolving the earlier SMC or cancelling the approval given for constitution of the petitioners’ SMC. In Page No.# 7/8 terms of Rule 13(3)(v) of the 2011 Rules, the recommendation for dissolution of an SMC can only be made after an inquiry is conducted into the complaints of negligence of SMC’s duties and responsibilities. 15. In the present case, there is nothing discernible in the inquiry report or in the impugned order dated 22.10.2024, as to what specific provision of the 2011 Rules has been violated while forming the petitioners’ SMC. The respondents have only taken a stand that the petitioners’ SMC had not been constituted as per the guidelines. The same is however bereft of any specifics. It is like saying that a person is charged with an offence under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, without specifying which particular provision has been violated. Though, it has been stated in para 3 of the affidavit-in- opposition filed by the Director of Elementary Education that the BEEO, Golakganj had conducted a hearing on 04.02.2024, where the petitioner was present, the same has not been supported by any document. There is no written notice issued to the petitioners regarding any steps to be taken by the respondents to dissolve the SMC. Further, the petitioners’ counsel has vehemently denied that the petitioners had been called for any meeting by the authority or that the petitioner No. 1 had participated in any such meeting. 16. On considering the fact that no written notice or inquiry report has been given to the petitioners, regarding any negligence of the petitioners’ SMC, in relation to it’s duties and responsibilities or with regard to the alleged illegal formation of the SMC in violation of the 2011 Rules, this Court is of the view that the decision by the respondent authorities to constitute a fresh SMC, without dissolution of the present SMC by following the principles of natural justice, is not sustainable. Accordingly, in view of the reasons stated above, the Page No.# 8/8 impugned orders dated 21.02.2024 and 22.10.2024 issued by the DEEO, Dhubri are hereby set aside. 17. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant