WP(C) 1612/2005 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. UK Nair, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. SK Das, learned stan ding counsel, Education Department appears for the official respondent Nos.1 to 5. No appearance is made by anyone on behalf of the respondent No.6. However it is submitted by Mr. Nair that since names of the lawyers are not reflected in th e cause list, he had personally informed Mr. M Ahmed, one of the counsels appea ring for the respondent No.6, about this case. 2. The petitioner No.1 is the Managing Committee of the Chapanala Middle En glish School and its Headmistress is the petitioner No.2 in the writ petition. T hey challenge the communication dated 1.2.2005 (Annexure-6) and the order dated 4.2.2005 (Annexure-7) of the Government and the Director of the Secondary Educat ion (DSE), Assam, whereby amalgamation of the Chapanala Middle English School (h ereinafter referred to as ’the ME School’) with the Chapanala Higher Secondary S chool (hereinafter referred to as ’the HS School’), both located in the same cam pus, was ordered. 3. Legality of the decision is challenged on the ground that under the prev alent policy, amalgamation of schools can be considered only when a request is m ade for the same by the Managing Committee’s of the two concerned schools and su ch decision is not to be forced upon unwilling schools. 4. While a purported resolution of 27.5.1999, adopted in a general meeting of the two schools is stated to be the basis for amalgamation decision, from the additional affidavit of the petitioner it is pointed out by Mr. Nair that, sign ature of the Headmistress of the ME School (petitioner No.2) was forcibly obtain ed in the minutes of meeting of 27.5.1999 and it was not a voluntary decision of the ME School. The subsequent resolution adopted on 4.5.2000 by the Managing Co mmittee of the ME School is also referred to by the learned counsel to show that , a resolution opposing the amalgamation was taken on 4.5.2000 to distance thems elves from the earlier coercive resolution of 27.5.1999. It is on this basis, th e petitioners submit that the amalgamation decision cannot be imposed upon the p etitioners. 5. Although the learned counsel for the Principal of the HS School (respond ent No.6) is absent, on behalf of the official respondents it is submitted by Mr . Das that since amalgamation was approved on 27.5.1999 in the General Meeting o f the two schools, the Government issued the impugned orders. However the standi ng counsel concedes fairly that, the Government considers amalgamation of two sa me campus schools only when, a request is made by the Managing Committee’s of bo th the schools and a decision is never imposed on unwilling schools. 6. It appears that an interim order was passed in this case on 2.3.2005 and accordingly it is pointed out by Mr. Nair that the impugned orders were not imp lemented for the schools in question. 7. Taking note of the fact that the Managing Committee of the ME School did not give their consent for amalgamation and the resolution dated 27.5.1999 was secured under pressure and having considered the later resolution of 4.5.2000, a dopted by the Managing Committee of the ME School, I hold that the impugned deci sions have been taken, without the required consent of the Managing Committee of the ME School. Accordingly considering the communication of 1.2.2005 (Annexure- 4) of the Government, which shows that amalgamation decision is not to be forced upon an unwilling school, I quash the impugned orders of 1.2.2005 (Annexure-6) and 4.2.2005 (Annexure-7). 8. The writ petition is allowed accordingly without any order of cost.