High Court · 2010

The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 8.4.2008 passed by a learne d Single Judge in WP(C) No.799/2008 dismissing its writ petition. The issue pertains to the amalgamation of the Zoo Road Vidyapith High Sc 2. hool (for short (cid:28)High School (cid:29)) and the Zoo Road Vidyapith Middle English School (for short (cid:28)ME School (cid:29)).

3. For the purposes of amalgamation of schools, the Education (Secondary) D epartment of the Government of Assam issued some guidelines on 16th July, 1983. The guidelines require that there should be no forcible amalgamation of the scho ols and (cid:28)amalgamation shall be carried out only wherever the Managing Committee of both H.E. Schools and M.E. Schools situated in the same campus/premises agree , by resolution, to such amalgamation (cid:29). Since the High School and the ME School are situated in the same campus, a proposal for their amalgamation would be cove red by the guidelines issued on 16th July, 1983. On 8.9.2005, the Government of Assam issued an order allowing the amalga 4. mation of the High School and the ME School with immediate effect subject to the fulfillment of some conditions. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 8.9.2005 a writ petition was filed by the Managing Committee of the ME School in this Cour t being WP(C) No.6683/2005. It was contended in the writ petition by the Managin g Committee of the ME School that the amalgamation was not in accordance with la w. This writ petition came to be disposed of by an order dated 13.6.2007 and the directions given therein by the learned Single Judge are important.

5. The learned Single Judge directed that a fresh exercise be conducted by the State to ascertain the majority view with regard to the amalgamation. This d irection of the learned Single Judge is given in paragraph 23 of the judgment wh ich reads as follows: (cid:28) . 7.6.05, if it is found that the views of the Managing Committee members and th e teaching staffs are overwhelmingly in favour of amalgamation, the impugned dec ision of amalgamation and consequential impugned decisions shall not be disturbe d and be allowed to attain finality. However, while conducting the fresh exercise as per the communication dt But if it is found that the majority view is against the amalgamation and approv al is lacking, the authorities would take necessary steps for undoing the amalga mation exercise ordered on 8.9.05, in respect of ME and High School in question, notwithstanding the fact that the schools have functioned as a single entity si nce 8.9.05. (cid:29)

6. A perusal of the above direction shows that the learned Single Judge has modified the guidelines issued on 16th July, 1983 by expanding or increasing th e decision-making authorities. It may be recalled that as per the guidelines, th e Managing Committees of the High School and the ME School were required to take a decision for amalgamation but in terms of the order passed by the learned Sin gle Judge, apart from the Managing Committee Members, the views of the teaching staff have also to be taken into consideration for the purposes of amalgamation.

7. From the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is clear that the majority view of the Managing Committees and the teaching staff of both schools has to be taken into consideration for deciding whether the amalgamation should be approved or not. In our view, what this means is that the majority of the Man aging Committee members as well as the teaching staff of both the schools should express their views and there is no bifurcation, as it were, between the Managi ng Committee and teaching staff of the High School, on the one hand, and the Man aging Committee and teaching staff of the ME School, on the other hand. In accordance with the direction given by the learned Single Judge, the 8. views of all concerned were taken into consideration by the Deputy Director of S econdary Education and the Deputy Secretary, Education (Secondary) Department on 29/30th August, 2007. On the basis of the views expressed by the members of the Managing Committees as well as teaching staff of both the schools i.e. the High School and the ME School, it was decided by an order dated 12.11.2007 that the amalgamation which had earlier been approved on 8.9.2005 should be revoked. Ther efore, both the schools would now continue to function as separate entities. Thereafter the matter was considered by the Commissioner and Secretary t 9. o the Government of Assam in the Education (Secondary) Department. After perusin g the order of the learned Single Judge as well as the proceedings taken pursuan t thereto it was noted that out of 37 persons who had expressed their opinion on 29/30th August, 2007 as many as 20 persons had given an opinion in favour of am algamation while 15 persons were against the amalgamation and 2 persons did not give any opinion. Proceeding on this basis, the Commissioner and Secretary to th e Government of Assam concluded that the majority views was in favour of amalgam ation and in compliance with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it wa s directed by an order dated 18.2.2008 that the High School as well as ME School would be amalgamated with immediate effect. The result of the order dated 18.2.2008 was that both the schools were a 10. malgamated and this naturally left some people dissatisfied. Accordingly, the Ma naging Committee of the ME School preferred a writ petition before this Court be ing WP(C) No.799/2008 which came to be decided by the order under appeal on 8.4. 2008. The learned Single Judge who heard the writ petition came to the conclusio n that the views expressed by the Commissioner and Secretary were correct and in accord with the directions given by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed and the amalgamation of the two schools was upheld.

11. Feeling aggrieved, the ME School (appellant) is now before us. It has be en contended on its behalf that the amalgamation of the High School with the ME School was not in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Government of Assam on 16th July, 1983 inasmuch as the Managing Committee of one of the school s (the appellant) was not in favour of the amalgamation.

12. In our opinion, this submission is no longer open to learned counsel for the appellant. As we have already noted above, the guidelines were effectively modified by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 13.6.2007. The learned S ingle Judge expanded the (cid:28)voter-base (cid:29) from the guidelines issued on 16.7.1983 ho lding that not only the views of the Managing Committee of the both schools but also the views of the teaching staff of the two schools should be taken into con sideration for the purpose of amalgamation. This was a clear departure from the guidelines issued by the Government of Assam. No party objected to this expansio n of the voter-base and in fact they participated in the decision making process . It is, therefore, too late now to say that the decision-making is confined onl y to the members of the Managing Committee of the two schools.

13. Insofar as the (cid:28)majority view (cid:29) is concerned, what was meant by the learn ed Single Judge is simply the majority view of the members of the Managing Commi ttees and the teaching staff of both schools. In this case, the majority view is a simple question of fact. The Commissioner and Secretary of the Government of Assam came to the conclusion that out of 37 persons, who participated in the del iberations, 20 of them were in favour of amalgamation. Therefore, there was a cl ear majority views in favour of amalgamation. That being so, all that was requir ed to be done, in view of the directions of the learned Single Judge, had been d one by the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam by accepting th e majority view and passing the order dated 8.4.2008. We do not find any error i n the view that has been taken by the Commissioner and Secretary in this regard, nor do we find any error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge affirmin g the conclusion of the Commissioner and Secretary. In view of the fact that 20 persons out of 37 voted in favour of amalgamation, there was no option but to ac cept the majority view and order the amalgamation of the two schools.

14. rdingly dismissed. In the circumstances, we do find any merit in this appeal and it is acco