The decision-making process in administrative matters is subject to judicial review, but the scope of review is limited to the process and does not extend to the merits of the decision taken.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri A.R. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri P. Saika, learned State Counsel whereas Ms. S. Dasgupta, learned counsel has appeared for the respondent nos. 5 and 6.

2. When this matter was taken up by this Court on the last occasion i.e. 23.06.2023, the following order was passed, which is extracted hereinbelow :

“Heard Shri A.R. Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner, who is aggrieved by an order dated 02.09.2022 whereby the respondent no. 6 has been made the President of the School Managing & Development Committee (SMDC) of Jafargarh Extd. Higher Secondary School in the district of Karimganj. It is the case of the petitioner that vide an earlier order dated 04.06.2022, the petitioner was duly elected and appointed as the President of the SMDC of the School whereafter the impugned order has been passed. No reasons have been disclosed as to why the petitioner has been replaced as the tenure in question is five years.

2. Also heard Shri SMT Chistie, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department as well as Ms. D. Das Barman, learned State Counsel for the State including the Deputy Commissioner. None has appeared for the respondent no. 5 in spite of names being shown in the cause-list.

3. Both the learned State Counsel have submitted that as per the notification dated 27.10.2021 which is presently holding the field of appointment of the President and Vice-President of the SMDC of educational institution, the power of selection is vested with the Deputy Commissioner which required the approval of the Guardian Minster.

4. Prima facie, the order dated 04.06.2022 would reflect that the approval of the Deputy Commissioner was taken. The question therefore arises as to whether the other formalities were fulfilled before issuance of the order of appointment order dated 04.06.2022 and even the impugned order dated 02.09.2022.

5. Let the records pertaining to such orders be produced by the learned State Counsel.

6. On request, list this case on 24.07.2023.”

3. Pursuant to the said order, the records in original have been produced by Shri P. Saikia, learned State Counsel appearing for the State respondents including the Deputy Commissioner of Karimganj.

4. Shri Talukdar, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide the initial notification dated 04.06.2022, SMDC of as many as 77 number of schools were constituted and vide the impugned order dated 02.09.2022, the change was brought only to the school of the petitioner in question whereby the petitioner was replaced by the respondent no. 6. Terming the said action to be arbitrary and unreasonable, he submits that there are no cogent reasons for issuing the impugned notification as the earlier notification was issued by following the guidelines contained in the notification dated 24.06.2016 pertaining to the constitution of SMDC. It is further submitted that the petitioner is an educationist and better qualified than the respondent no. 6, who is a businessman.

5. Per contra, Shri Saikia, learned State Counsel has submitted that while the petitioner has annexed the notification dated 24.06.2016 by submitting that the same is operative for constitution of SMDC, the factual position is a different one. He submits that presently, a notification dated 27.10.2021 is holding the field whereby the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned district is empowered to select the President and Vice-President of the SMDC of an educational institution of the concerned district with the approval of the Guardian Minister. He submits that the impugned notification dated 02.09.2022 has been issued by following the notification dated 27.10.2021.

6. By referring to the records, the learned State Counsel submits that the same contains the reasons for which impugned notification was issued.

7. Ms. Dasgupta, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 5 and 6 by controverting the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner contends that the present noti