Parents challenged the appointment of a politically active person as President of the School Management and Development Committee, made outside the school-prepared panel. The Court held he failed the 'no political career' eligibility criterion and quashed the appointment, directing fresh selection from the panel.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/12
GAHC010166422023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/397/2023
MONIR UDDIN AND 2 ORS
S/O LT. MONSER ALI KHANDAKAR VILL. BHIMKHOJ P.O. KHALISABHITA P.S LAKHIPUR DIST. GAOLPARA ASSAM PIN-783330
2: ABEZUR RAHMAN
S/O LT. HABEJ UDDIN VILL. BHIMKHOJ P.O. KHALISABHITA P.S LAKHIPUR DIST. GAOLPARA ASSAM PIN-783330
3: ABDUL KADER
S/O LT. MUSKAR ALI VILL. RAKHALKILLA P.O. KHALISABHITA P.S LAKHIPUR DIST. GAOLPARA ASSAM PIN-783330 VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
REP. BY THE SECRETARY SCHOOL EDUCATION TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM DISPUR GHY-6
2:THE DIRECTOR OF SECONDARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GUWAHATI-19 3:THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER GOALPARA P.O. AND DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783101 4:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS GDC GAOLPARA P.O. AND DIST. GOLAPARA ASSAM PIN-783101 5:THE PRINCIPAL OF KHALISABHITA H.S. SCHOOL P.O. SIMLABARI P.S LAKHIPUR DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783330 6:SAIFUL ISLAM S/O IDRIS ALI VILL. CHARALJHAR P.O. KHALISABHITA P.S LAKHIPUR DIST. GOALPARA ASSAM PIN-783330
-----------Advocate for : MR R ISLAM Advocate for : GA
Page No.# 2/12
ASSAM appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND 5 ORS
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
JUDGMENT & ORDER (Oral)
Date : 05-01-2024
Heard Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U. Sharma, Standing Counsel, Education (Secondary) Department for respondent Nos. 1, & 2 and Ms. D. Das Barman, learned Government Advocate for respondent no. 3 as well as Mr. N. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6.
Page No.# 3/12
the staffs, parents, guardians and local people of the area prepared a panel list of two persons, namely, 1) Ashraful Islam Mondal and 2) Anowar Hussain for the post of President of SMDC of the said school and the same was forwarded to the jurisdictional Inspector of Schools for necessary further action.
Page No.# 4/12
President in the SMDC of the said school. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 6 is a young person, aged about 32 years and actively involved in politics and as such, he does not fulfill the eligibility criteria as mandated to be possessed by a person to be appointed as President in the SMDC of the said school. Further it was submitted that the name of the respondent no. 6 was not nominated by the school authorities.
Page No.# 5/12
Page No.# 6/12
said notification dated 24.06.2016, a person to be eligible for being considered for appointment as President of the SMDC of a school has to be a local educated reputed citizen having no political career. In terms of the guidelines contained in the notification dated 24.06.2016, it is mandated that the Inspector of Schools, after consultation with the Principal/Headmaster and with local people of the area will forward two names to the Director, Secondary Education Assam for the posts of President and Vice-President with the recommendation of the Deputy Commissioner. Upon consideration of the names as forwarded, the Director, Secondary Education, Assam will provide a list to the government with his comments for selecting a single name after comparing the data of both the candidates and the government will then approve the committee.
Page No.# 7/12
27.10.2021, it is seen that in the notification dated 24.06.2016, the power of appointment of a President or Vice-President of a SMDC of a school was vested in the Director and the Government. It is this power of effecting appointments that has now been modified vide the notification dated 27.10.2021 and vested the same in the Deputy Commissioner of the District concerned with the requirement of having the approval of the guardian minister of the district concerned to such appointments. Baring the power of appointment as modified vide the notification dated 27.10.2021, the other provisions of notification dated 24.06.2016 continues to hold the field as before.
Page No.# 8/12
Page No.# 9/12
clear that the said guidelines requires that the person who is nominated in the said posts must not be involved in active political activities, or in other words, must not have a career in politics. The respondent no. 6 as evident from the materials available on record was an active participant in political activity and had a political career. The said position is also admitted by the respondent no. 6 in his pleadings available in the I.A.(C)2165/2023, wherein, he contends that he was a member of the Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha, but he had resigned from the said post on 25.05.2022.
Page No.# 10/12
have been effected by him on 25.05.2022, is of no consequence inasmuch as the said resignation was so effected after the game has started. It is a settled law that once a game has started the rules of the game cannot be changed midway. In view of the said position, it is clear that the respondent no. 6 does not fulfill the eligibility criteria as mandated in the guidelines as contained in the notification dated 24.06.2016 and as such, he could not have been considered for appointment as the President of the SMDC of the school in question. Further, the guidelines as contained in the notification dated 24.06.2016, requires the preparation of a panel by the Inspector of the Schools after consultation with the Principal/Headmaster and local people and these provisions having not been modified by the subsequent notification dated 27.10.2021, the name of the respondent no. 6 having not been empaneled in pursuance to the process as required under the notification dated 24.06.2016, the Deputy Commissioner could not have selected the name of the respondent no. 6 for appointment as President of the SMDC in the school in question. The approval of the guardian minister to the selection of appointment of the respondent no. 6 for the post of President of the SMDC of the school in question is of no consequence inasmuch as the selection made in his favor by the Deputy Commissioner being in violation of the procedure as mandated in the guidelines contained in the notification dated 24.06.2016, the same is void-ab-initio.
Page No.# 11/12
accordingly, the same cannot be sustained.
Page No.# 12/12
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appointment of respondent no. 6 as President of the SMDC was valid despite his political career and absence from the school's panel.
Whether the notification dated 27.10.2021 displaced the panel-based selection procedure in the notification dated 24.06.2016.
Monir Uddin
Abezur Rahman
Abdul Kader
The State of Assam
The Director of Secondary Education Assam
Saiful Islam
N. Unni Krishnan Nair
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
