The President, School Managing Committee of Barkhopa M.E. School and Anr v. The State of Assam and 9 Ors

ORDER

02.06.2023 Heard Shri RC Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. N. Page No.# 3/5 Phookan, learned Standing Counsel, Elementary Education Department as well as Shri U. Sarma, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department and Shri S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, BTC.

¶2Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the writ petition is pending since the year 2018 without any affidavit being filed by the contesting respondents, the same is taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

¶3The facts projected are that an Office Memorandum was issued by the Education Department on the policy of merger of various Schools. In the instant case, the relevant Clause is Clause 10 which is extracted hereinbelow- "Clause – (10): If a M.E. School has poor enrolment i.e., less than 15 students in each class then the M.E. School may be merged with the nearby High School."

¶4The petitioners are the Office Bearers of the School Managing Committee of the Barkhopa ME School in the district of Baksa. In terms of the aforesaid policy decision, an order was issued on 19.01.2018 whereby the School of the petitioners along with the Barkhopa High School were sought to be amalgamated with Ahiyabari High School.

¶5By drawing the attention of the aforesaid Clause of the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2016, Shri Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that to amalgamate an ME School there has to be less than 15 numbers of students in each classes and under that condition, the said ME School may be merged with the nearby High School.

¶6By referring to the data regarding number of students and staff in the said School which has been annexed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition, Shri Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that each of the Classes have students which is more than the requisite number mentioned in Clause 10. For ready reference, the data regarding the number of students in various classes is extracted hereinbelow-Page No.# 4/5 "Statement showing of Classwise enrolment of Barkhopa M.E. School.

¶1Class (VI) 60

¶2Class (VII) 71

¶3Class (VIII) 70 Total = 201"

¶7The learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that apart from the fact that the number of students in the concerned school does not justify any action of merger, there is another condition that the High School has to be in the vicinity. It is submitted that the Ahiyabari High School is far away from the School of the petitioners.

¶8The learned counsel for the respondents however submit that the impugned notification being an outcome of a policy decision, the same may not be interfered with by this Court.

¶9After hearing the parties and on perusal of the materials on record, this Court has come to the conclusion that the projected fact of petitioners have not been controverted by any of the respondents by filing any affidavit and therefore by the doctrine of non-traverse, the averments made may be deemed to be correct. Even otherwise, this Court has noted that the data regarding students does not justify merger of the School in question with any High School. The policy decision published vide the Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2016 with regard to the merger of ME School with the nearby High School does not appear to be applicable to the case of the petitioners both on the issue of number of students and the distance factor.

¶10Shri Saikia, learned counsel for the petitioners, at this stage, submits that this Court while issuing notice had passed an interim order dated 24.09.2018 which is continuing till date.

¶11In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order so far Page No.# 5/5 as it relates to the merger of the school of the petitioners are concerned is liable to be interfered with which is accordingly done. Consequently, the part of the impugned dated 19.01.2018 relating to the Barkhopa ME School is set aside. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed and the interim order is also made absolute. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/5 GAHC010170302018 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/5261/2018o THEoPRESIDENT,oSCHOOLoMANAGINGoCOMMITTEEoOFoBARKHOPAoM.E.o SCHOOLoANDoANR.o PIN-o781367,oDIST-oBAKSA,oREP.oBYoSRIoDHARANIDHARoDEKA,oS/O-oLATEo PABITRAoDEKA,oVILL-oGARUA,oP.O-oBORKHOPA,oPIN-o781367,oDIST-oBAKSA 2:oSECRETARY oTHEoSCHOOLoMANAGINGoCOMMITTEEoOFoBARKHOPAoMoEoSCHOOL oREP.oBYoSRIoNIVAoBORO oW/O-oSANTIoBORO oHEADoMISTRESSoI/CoOFoBARKHOPAoMEoSCHOOLoUNDERoBLOCKo ELEMENTARYoEDUCATIONoOFFICE oTAMULPUR oDIST-oBAKSA oPIN-o78136o VERSUSo THEoSTATEoOFoASSAMoANDo9oORSo REP.oBYoTHEoCOMMISSIONERoANDoSECRETARYoTOoTHEoGOVToOFoASSAM,o ELEMENTARYoEDUCATIONoDEPTT,oDISPUR,oGUWAHATI-o781006 2:THEoADDITIONALoCHIEFoSECRETARY oGOVToOFoASSAM oELEMENTARYoEDUCATIONoDEPTT oDISPUR oGHY-o6 3:THEoSECRETARY oGOVToOFoASSAM oELEMENTARYoEDUCATIONoDEPTT oDISPUR oGUWAHATI-o06 4:THEoDIRECTOR Page No.# 2/5 SECONDARY EDUCATION KAHILIPARA GHY- 19 5:THE DIRECTOR ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ASSAM KAHILIPARA GHY- 19 6:THE DEPUTY SECRETARY GOVT OF ASSAM EDUCATION DEPTT DISPUR GHY- 06 7:THE SECRETARY EDUCATION BTAD KOKRAJHAR PIN- 783370 8:THE DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION BTAD KOKRAJHAR PIN- 783370 9:THE INSPECTOR OF SCHOOLS BTAD DISTRICT BAKSA PIN- 781371 10:THE DISTRICT ELEMENTARY EDUCATION OFFICER BTAD DISTRICT BAKSA PIN- 78137 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R C SAIKIA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, ELEM. EDU BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI