2

counsel on behalf of the respondents and Mr. Ambrose Ch. Marak, Director of School Education is personally present.

2. The petitioner's case in a nutshell is that:

"The outgoing Managing Committee whose tenure is likely to expire on 03/08/2017 submitted a proposal to the Respondent No. 2 & 3 for granting approval to the re-constituted Managing Committee of R.B.Anupchand Hindi Secondary School, Keating Road, Shillong - 793001 to manage and look after the affairs of Secondary Section, Upper Primary Section and Lower Primary Section of the school for a period of 3 (three) years w.e.f. 04/08/2017 to 03/08/2020, the said proposal was submitted to the Respondent No. 2 & 3 vide letter under Memo. No. RBAHSS/MC/2017-18/1-3 dated 26/04/2017 by the Petitioner which was received by the Respondents on 26/04/2017. It may be stated herein that the proposal was submitted after holding the election of guardian's representative and the teacher's representative as well as the donor's representative. Thereafter, a Resolution No. 3 was passed in a meeting of Managing Committee of the aforesaid school held on 08/04/2017 whereby the office bearers were elected and a list of managing committee members was prepared thereof. Further, a complete proposal along with all the Annexures with regard to the meeting held for the purpose of re-constitution the Managing Committee of the aforesaid school was forwarded to the Respondent No. 2 & 3 for approval which was not later than 3 months before the expiry of the tenure of the outgoing Managing Committee, therefore the Rule 5 of the Education Rules and Order is fully complied with.

It was expected of the Managing

Committee of R.B. Anupchand Hindi Secondary School, Keating Road, Shillong - 793001 would be approved by the Respondents before the expiry of the tenure of the existing Managing Committee as per the related Rules but the same has not been done by the Respondents which has created suspicion in the mind of the Petitioner, hence, the office of the Respondent No. 2 & 3 were approached and it has been surfaced that the Director of School Education & Literacy, Meghalaya, Shillong vide its Letter

3

No. DSEL/SEC-NG/MC/3/2016/134 dated 22/06/2017 has refused to accord the approval to the proposal forwarded by the existing Managing Committee on the baseless and uncalled for grounds. The copy of the impugned letter No. DSEL/SEC- NG/MC/3/2016/134 dated 22/06/2017 issued by the Respondent No. 2, the Director of School Education & Literacy, Meghalaya, Shillong was not given to the Petitioner in as much as no opportunity of hearing or showing cause was afforded to the Petitioner before issuing the impugned letter No. DSEL/SEC- NG/MC/3/2016/134 dated 22/06/2017 therefore, there has been violation of principle of natural justice in the matter. The Petitioner filed an application dated 29/06/2017 under Right to Information Act, 2005 before the District School Education Officer, East Khasi Hills, Shillong asking the copy of the said impugned letter of the Respondent No. 2. The information under the RTI was furnished to the Petitioner who got shocked to go through the impugned letter No. DSEL/SEC-

NG/MC/3/2016/134 dated 22/06/2017 issued by the Respondent No. 2, the director of School Education & Literacy, Meghalaya, Shillong which is based on concocted, manipulative and on complete distortion of facts in as much as in suppression of the real and actual facts which was never expected from the Respondent No. 2 holding the public office and while he has to act in accordance with the law and in a complete transparency of all the facts without showing favouritism and nepotism due to the political interference in the matter.

The impugned letter No. DSEL/SEC-

NG/MC/3/2016/134 dated 22/06/2017

issued by the Respondent No. 2, the Director of School Education & Literacy, Meghalaya, Shillong is based on suppression of vital facts that the outgoing Managing Committee forwarded the names of elected members i.e. teachers, donors and guardians representative 3 months before the expiry of the tenure of the existing Managing Committee and the proposal thereon was submitted to the Respondent No. 2 & 3 on 26/04/2017 which is within the time frame as provided under Section II Rule 5 of Education Rules and Order, hence the ground taken by the Respondent No. 2 for refusing to give approval to the proposal submitted by the outgoing Managing Committee is totally

4

uncalled for and based on no documentary proof rather on the fact of it, the proposal was submitted and received by the office of Respondent No. 2 & 3 on 26/04/2017 as per Annexure I of the Writ Petition.

In the backdrop of the facts, the Respondent No. 2 is not entitled to invoke Rule 5 for the purpose of constituting or reconstituting the Managing Committee of the aforesaid school on alleged failure of the outgoing school Managing Committee to submit the proposal in time. In the instant case, the proposal for the constitution or reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the school was submitted in time hence the same cannot be rejected or refused by the Respondents. Moreover, the Petitioner was not given an opportunity of showing cause or hearing before issuing the impugned Letter No. DSEL/SEC- NG/MC/3/2016/134 dated 22/06/2017, hence the principle of natural justice is violated. The Respondent No. 2 is not correct in alleging in the impugned letter that the proposal was submitted by the Marwari Panchayat for the constitution or reconstitution of Managing Committee, although the land and the building wherein the R.B.Anupchand Hindi Secondary School, Keating Road, Shillong - 793 001 is being run belongs to Marwari Panchayat but they are not interfering in any manner so far the constitution or reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the aforesaid school but the proposal is being sent by the School Managing Committee and the order of the erstwhile Gauhati High Court is totally irrelevant in the matter. It is further submitted that as per the available records, the proposal for the constitution or reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the aforesaid school is sent by the Secretary of outgoing Managing Committee for approval. The Managing Committee proposed by the Secretary of the Outgoing Committee of the aforesaid school for a period of 3 (three) years w.e.f. 04/08/2011 was approved by the Respondent No. 3 vide Letter under Memo No. IS/M-4/2011/4694-709 dated 02-06-2011 likewise the Managing Committee proposed by the then Secretary of the then outgoing Managing Committee for a period of 3 (three) years w.e.f. 04/08/2014 to 03/08/2017 was approved by the Respondent No. 3 vide Letter under Memo No. DSEO/ MC/ RBASS/ 2014/ 6343-60 dated 12/08/2014.

5

|The next Managing Committee for a period of 3 (three) years 04/08/2017 to 03/08/2020 which has been proposed by the Secretary or outgoing Managing Committee in accordance with the rules highlighted in the impugned letter issued by the respondent No. 2 cannot be discarded or approval thereof cannot be refused since the requirement as per the Rule aforesaid has been fulfilled. Further, there was no reference of Marwari Panchayat in all the above proposals submitted to the Respondents for the constitution or reconstitution of Managing Committee after the expiry of tenure. The Respondents are required to act in accordance with the law and the related rules for the purpose of constituting or reconstituting of the Managing Committee of the school aforesaid and to accord approval thereof, so that the Managing Committee may able to look after the affairs of the school smoothly. Any person having rightful claim over the management of the school may approach the Managing Committee in a legal and proper way but not at all from the backdoor with the help of some political leader.

The Respondents not only acted in violation of the law and the related rules but also acted in violation of principle of natural justice since the opportunity of showing cause and hearing was not given to the Petitioner before issuing the impugned letter No. DSEL / SEC - NG /MC /3 /2016 /134 dated 22/06/2017 which is not sustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be set aside and quashed."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the terms of the Managing Committee of R.B.Anupchand Hindi Secondary School is going to expire on 03/08/2017 so a proposal was sent to the District School Education Officer, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong, Meghalaya to constitute the Managing Committee on 26-04-2017 and the District School Education Officer, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong, Meghalaya to constitute the Managing Committee had consulted the headman

6

which is totally beyond the rule. Headman has no rule to constitute the Managing Committee in the School.

4. Learned counsel, Mr. A.S.Siddiqui is present on behalf of the Caveator, Mr. Pawan Sharma and submits that if the Education Department feels to constitute the Managing Committee, they should proceed in accordance with the rules and law.

5. I have seen the letter addressed to the District School Education Officer, East Khasi Hills District, Shillong , Meghalaya sent by one Mr. S.L.Singhania, Headman, Police Bazar dated 27- 01-2017 wherein he recommended the names of certain persons to be President, Secretary and Members of the new Managing Committee.

6. After hearing the submissions, two issues came up before this Court; (i) who is to constitute the Managing Committee and

(ii) under what rule the headman can recommend names to constitute the Managing Committee. From the Assam Education Department Rules and Orders which was adopted by the Govt. of Meghalaya, Section 11 clearly speaks who can constitute the Managing Committee. On perusal of the said rule, it is very clear that it is the Education Department, Govt. of Meghalaya who should constitute the Managing Committee and it is not necessary to discuss or take any approval from the headman.

7. Before I part with the case record, I would like to say that in normal areas there is no question of headman. Besides that, no rule permits that a non-tribal can be a headman. The

7

procedure of election of the headman is that he is to be elected by the people of a particular area and thereafter he is to get the Sanad from the Syiemship. I, therefore, cannot understand how one Mr. S.L.Singhania recommended the names as headman which is highly illegal and unwanted. However, this time I am not passing any strong order or take any action and direction. The Government is directed to constitute the Managing Committee before the expiry of the present Managing Committee in accordance with the rules and laws adopted by the Govt. of Meghalaya. I further order that no consultation is required with the headman.

8. With this observation and direction, this instant petition is allowed to that extent and stands disposed of.

JUDGE

S.Rynjah