WP(C) 3070/2007 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY JUDGEMENT AND ORDER(ORAL) The order dated 5.6.2007 of the Incharge Inspector of Schools, N agaon District Circle, Nagaon reconstituting the Managing Committee of Ambari Hi gh School, Nagaon(hereinafter referred to as the ’School’) is under challenge i n the instant proceeding. 2. I have heard Mr HRA Choudhury, learned Senior counsel for the pe titioners, Ms M Gogoi Medhi, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department for the official respondents and Mr K.Konwar, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 3. The petitioners’ pleaded case is that, the school is a governmen t aided institution governed by the Assam Aided Higher Secondary, High and Middl e Schools Management Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the ’Rules’). In te rms of the guidelines formulated by the government, the Managing Committee of th e school was constituted on 1.2.2006 with the petitioner No.1 as the President and the petitioner No.8 , the donor member thereof respectively. While the sai d body was in office, on the basis of some frivolous allegations against it, the Inspector of Schools, Nagaon District Circle(for short also referred to Respond ent No.3) vide order dated 13.6.2006 kept the order dated 1.2.2006 constituting the said Managing Committee in abeyance. Thereafter, by his order dated 15.6.20 07 the Managing Committee was resurrected as the allegations made against it wer e found to be baseless. However, by the impugned order, the Managing Committee of the school has been reconstituted ousting the petitioners and others. This, the petitioners have pleaded is in violation of the principles of natural justic e as well as in contravention of Rule 6 of the Rules. 4. The Director of Secondary Education, Assam in his affidavit has justified the impugned decision. While contending that the petitioner No.1 an d the petitioner No.8 have since been convicted in a criminal offence in Sessio ns case No.29/1996 and had been consequently arrested and detained in jail. Mor eover, a number of complaints were received against the members of the Managi ng Committee by the respondent No.3 and on enquiry, the said authority(respon dent No.3) being satisfied that the Managing Committee deserves to be dissolve d, the impugned decision was taken. The answering respondent affirmed the power of the respondent No.3 to dissolve the Managing committee of the school under Rule 6 of the Rules. Noticeably, however, it was not indicated as to whether , approval of the decision taken by the respondent No.3 had been accorded by the d eponent i.e. Director of Secondary Education, Assam. 5. The respondent No.4 in his affidavit has substantially endorsed the stand taken by the State respondents. 6. Mr Choudhury has urged that not only the allegation made against the earlier Managing Committee has been asserted to be baseless, the compositi on thereof was approved with the full knowledge that the petitioners were accu sed in a criminal case. According to the learned Senior counsel, in the above fa ctual premise, the impugned order without affording prior opportunity of hearin g to the said Managing Committee is non est in law. Moreover, as the approval of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam had not been accorded to the diss olution of the Managing committee , the reconstitution in terms of the order da ted 5.6.2007 is per se invalid. 7. Ms Gogoi Medhi with reference to the official records has submi tted that not only the subsisting facts and circumstances justify the dissolutio n of the Managing Committee, the affidavit filed by the Director of Secondary Ed ucation, Assam implicitly demonstrates his approval to the action taken by the respondent No.3. 8. Mr Konwar has urged that in the facts and circumstances of the c ase, the approval of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam is apparent and there being sufficient materials on record to sustain the impugned decision, no interference of this Court is warranted. 9. The pleadings of the parties and the rival submissions have rec eived the due consideration of this Court. A perusal of the official records pro duced by the learned Standing counsel ,however, do not disclose any clear and categorical finding of the departmental authorities against the malfunctioning of the Managing Committee of which the petitioner No.1 had been the President. Instead, the note dated 13.7.2006 evidences that the allegations levelled agai nst the said Managing Committee were not genuine. It was resultantly, that the order dated 13.6.2006 was withdrawn. 10. Assuming that the conviction of the petitioners in a Sessions case and the confirmation thereof by this Court in appeal, is considered to be a disqualification to continue as a member of the Managing Committee of an acad emic institution, a plain reading of Rule 6 of the Rules, though may justify th e intervention of the Inspector of Schools as contemplated therein, the dissolut ion of the Managing Committee tobe effective in law has to be approved by the Di rector of Secondary Education, Assam save in cases where such approval is infera ble under his general and special orders. Neither the Inspector of Schools, NDC, Nagaon present in Court nor the learned Standing Counsel, Education Departm ent could refer to any such order of the Director of Secondary School, Assam an y order general or special. Having regard to the unequivocal mandate of the abov e provision of the Rules, it is difficult to assume such a approval from the af fidavit filed in the instant proceeding. Conspicuously, the Director of Seconda ry Education, Assam abstained from making any mention about his approval to th e decision of the Inspector of Schools, Nagaon District Circle, Nagaon, responde nt No.3. It would, therefore, be reasonable to conclude that the dissolution of the petitioner’s Managing committee was wanting in approval of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam as prescribed by Rule 6. Incidentally, no order for dissolution of the petitioners’ Managing committee is available in the official records. Further, the impugned order though seeks to modify some earlier ord er omits to mention the particulars thereof. In the opinion of this Court, a bar e perusal thereof displays a mechanical exercise of executive power. 11. On the above considerations, this Court is constrained to interf ere with the impugned order of reconstitution of the Managing committee of the s chool. The order dated 5.6.2007(Annexure-4) passed by the Inspector of Schools, Nagaon District Circle, Nagaon is therefore set aside. The petition is allowed. Mr Anisur Rahman Choudhury, Inspector of Schools, Nagaon District Circle, Nagao n is personally present in Court in terms of the order of this Court dated 3.6.2 008. His personal appearance is dispensed with. No costs.