Adherence to the guidelines for the appointment of SMDC President as per the government notifications dated 24.06.2016 and 27.10.2021 is crucial, and any deviation renders the appointment void-ab-initio.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. U. Sharma, Standing Counsel, Education (Secondary) Department for respondent Nos. 1, & 2 and Ms. D. Das Barman, learned Government Advocate for respondent no. 3 as well as Mr. N. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent no. 6.

2. The petitioners, who are the guardians/parents of the students studying in Khalisabhita H.S. School have instituted the present proceeding making a challenge to the appointment of the respondent no. 6 as the President of the School Management and Development Committee (SMDC) of the said school.

3. As projected in the writ petition, the Inspector of the schools, GDC, Goalpara vide a letter dated 28.09.2021, had required all Heads of Institution under his jurisdiction including the respondent no. 5 herein to submit a panel of two names each for the posts of President and Vice-President of the SMDC of the school in accordance with the guidelines contained in the government notification dated 24.06.2016. In pursuance to the said communication dated 28.09.2021, the respondent no. 5 in consultation with the staffs, parents, guardians and local people of the area prepared a panel list of two persons, namely, (1) Ashraful Islam Mondal and (2) Anowar Hussain for the post of President of SMDC of the said school and the same was forwarded to the jurisdictional Inspector of Schools for necessary further action.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that ignoring the panel list as prepared in terms of the guidelines contained in the government notification dated 24.06.2016, the Inspector of Schools, Goalpara vide his communication dated 16.12.2022, approved the name of the respondent no. 6 as the President of the SMDC of the said school and the respondent no. 5 was directed to convene a general meeting for constitution of the SMDC. It is this communication dated 16.12.2022, that is presently under challenge in the present proceeding.

5. Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioners by drawing the attention of the Court to the guidelines for constitution of the SMDC as contained in the government notification dated 24.06.2016, more particularly, the qualification prescribed therein for the post of President has contended that the candidate to be approved for the post of President must be a local educated reputed citizen having no political career. It is contended by referring to Annexure-5 of the writ petition that the respondent no. 6 is having an active political career and is a member of the Bhartiya Janata Yuva Morcha, Goalpara District, and was nominated as its College Outreach Co-In-charge . It is submitted that the respondent no. 6 being a person having a political career, he is not eligible for being considered for the post of President in the SMDC of the said school. It is further submitted that the respondent no. 6 is a young person, aged about 32 years and actively involved in politics and as such, he does not fulfill the eligibility criteria as mandated to be possessed by a person to be appointed as President in the SMDC of the said school. Further it was submitted that the name of the respondent no. 6 was not nominated by the school authorities.

6. Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance to the approval of the name of the respondent no. 6 as the President of the SMDC of the said school and one another as its Vice-President, the full-fledged committee of the said SMDC is yet to be constituted inasmuch as the meeting requisite to be convened for such constitution has not been convened till the date of filing of the writ petition. As such, basing on the said contentions it is prayed that the approval of the name of the respondent no. 6 as the President of the SMDC of the school in question, vide communication dated 16.12.2022, be interfered with by this Court.

7. Mr. N. Sharma, learned counsel, by referring to the pleadings as available in the matter in the I.A.(C)/2165/2023, filed by the re