Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010016522025 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/545/2025 THE SCHOOL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE AUTOLABORI M.E. SCHOOL, LAHARIGHAT, MORIGAON, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, SAIFUL ISLAM, SON OF MAMTAZ ALI, R/O- VILL.- AUTOLABORI, P.O. CHETUAIKHAITY, P.S. LAHARIGHAT, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM, PPIN- 782127. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 7 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF ASSAM, DEPARTMENT OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-6. 2:THE DIRECTOR OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 ASSAM 3:THE ADDL. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER (EDUCATION) MORIGAON DISTRICT ASSAM 4:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER MORIGAON DISTRICT ASSAM 5:THE BLOCK ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER LAHARIGHAT MORIGAON ASSAM Page No.# 2/6 6:THE BLOCK MISSION CO-ORDINATOR SAMAGRA SIKSHA ASSAM (SSA) LAHARIGHAT BLOCK DIST.- MORIGAON ASSAM 7:THE CLUSTER RESOURCE CENTRE CO-ORDINATOR AUTOLABORI CLUSTER RESOURCE CENTRE SAMAGRA SIKSHA ASSAM 8:RAFIQUL ISLAM HEADMASTER IN-CHARGE AUTOLABORI M.E. SCHOOL LAHARIGHAT DIST.- MORIGAON ASSAM PIN- 782127 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. D CHAKRABARTY, MS D.CHAKRABARTY Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM, SC, SSA,SC, ELEM. EDU BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA ORDER Date : 06.02.2025 Heard Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Chutia, learned standing counsel for the Elementary Education Department, representing respondent nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5; Mr. J.K. Goswami, learned Addl. Senior Govt. advocate appearing for the respondent no.3 and Mr. S. Borah, learned standing counsel for the SSA, representing respondent nos. 6 and 7. Page No.# 3/6 2. The petitioner is the School Management Committee of Autolabori M.E. School, Laharighat, constituted under Section 21 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Referring to the various grievances mentioned in this writ petition, it is submitted that the School Management Committee has compiled a list of several instances of high-handedness by the Principal of the said school, who is arrayed as respondent no.8 in this writ petition. It is submitted that as the Principal, he also holds the position of Secretary of the School Management Committee (SMC for short). The SMC had submitted their complaints to various authorities of the School Education Department, i.e., the DEEO and the BEEO. However, none of those complaints have yielded any result. 3. Amongst others, it is highlighted that by a complaint made on 20.05.2024 before the BEEO, Laharighat, several instances of misconduct on part of respondent no.8 was highlighted. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on 22.05.2024, Executive Committee Meeting of the SMC was held by respondent no.8 without the knowledge of 11 (eleven) members of the SMC and a resolution was taken for removing the President on account of no confidence allegedly expressed in the said meeting. On coming to know about the same, all the 11 (eleven) SMC members had submitted a representation dated 27.05.2024 before the BEEO, Laharighat, stating that their signatures were procured by the respondent no.8 in the name of calling SMC meeting, for which no notice was issued or called. Therefore, on 19.09.2024, one of the members of SMC had submitted a representation before the Addl. District Commissioner, (Education), Morigaon for removing the respondent no.8 from the post of President. Although a show-cause notice was issued thereafter, no action has been taken against the respondent no.8. Thereafter, another Page No.# 4/6 representation was submitted on 09.01.2025 before the BEEO, Laharighat, who forwarded the same to the DEEO, Morigaon. As no departmental action has been taken, the present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to call for the records of the proceedings books of the SMC and to pass an appropriate orders by directing the respondent authorities to take disciplinary action against the respondent no.8 and to remove him from the post of Headmaster (In-charge) of the said school. 4. Per contra, assailing the maintainability of the writ petition, the learned standing counsel for the Sarba Siksha Abhijan (SSA for short) has submitted that although he represents the SSA, in order to assist the Court, he would like to submit that if a writ petition of this nature is entertained, there will be a flood-gate of litigations, whereby petitioners would approach the Court seeking a direction from this Court for initiating disciplinary action against government servants, which in turn, would amount to the Court taking over the administration for the purpose of ascertaining against whom disciplinary action should be initiated. A similar submission has been made by the learned standing counsel for the School Education Department. 5. On a query of the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has no instruction as to whether against removal of concerned persons from the SMC any steps has been taken by the concerned persons. It may be stated that the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on Section 21 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and Rule 13 of Assam Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education, Rules, 2011 to submit that the composition and functioning of SMC is regulated by Rule 13. 6. On a consideration of the materials available on record, we find that Page No.# 5/6 under Rule 28 of the 2011 Rules, it contains the provisions for supervision and inspection. Moreover, it is seen that under sub-Rule 5 of Rule 13, the provision for removal of the President and Members of the SMC and filling up a vacancy is provided for and under sub-Rule 6 of Rule 13, SMC can also be dissolved. Therefore, it is for the appropriate Government authorities to take an appropriate action as permitted under Rule 28 of the said Rules or under any other provisions therefor. However, neither the provisions of Section 21 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 or the rules framed thereunder, the Court has the power to embark upon a fact finding enquiry and to record a prima facie satisfaction as to whether or not any person has committed any misconduct so as to issue a direction upon the State to take disciplinary action against such person. Such an act is exclusively within the domain of the executive of the State. 7. Therefore, without examining the allegations on merit, it prima facie appears that if a person is removed from the SMC, it would not give right to the SMC to agitate the grievance of those persons who are removed from the SMC. Whether such removal was in accordance with law or not requires a fact finding and this Court would not embark upon a fact finding exercise by making fishing and roving enquiry. 8. Accordingly, as it is not for the Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to make an enquiry as to whether or not a person has committed any misconduct and then direct the authorities to take appropriate action, the Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case to allow any of the prayers made in this writ petition. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage without issuance of notice on the respondents. Page No.# 6/6 9. Accordingly, it is clarified that the dismissal of this writ petition shall not stand as a bar for the petitioner to take such other steps as may be permissible in law, as they may be so advised. JUDGE Comparing Assistant