The cancellation of a school’s affiliation without providing an opportunity to be heard constitutes a gross violation of natural justice, allowing the court to intervene despite the existence of an alternative remedy.

Judgment :

(SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.)

Heard Shri PR Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Shri TC Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, SSEB (erstwhile SEBA) as well as Ms. D Musahary, learned Standing Counsel, Secondary Education Department, Assam. None appears for the proforma respondent upon whom service has been effected and in this regard, an affidavit for dasti service has also been filed.

2. Considering the nature of the dispute raised in this petition and also the exchange of affidavits, the present petition is taken up for disposal at the admission stage itself.

3. The petitioner is the President of the School Management Committee of Rayang Tribal High School, Jonai in the district of Dhemaji. It is averred that the School was also allotted the UDISE and SEBA Codes and the functioning of the School has been going on in the smooth manner. However, on 19.02.2024 while the HSLC examination of the State was going on, one complaint was lodged before the Jonai Police Station in the form of an FIR which was registered as Jonai PS Case No.17/2024, corresponding to GR Case No. 20/2024. In connection with the said complaint, the impugned order has been passed almost immediately thereafter cancelling the affiliation of the School in question w.e.f. 01.04.2024.

4. Shri Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the aforesaid action is absolutely arbitrary, unreasonable and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. He has submitted that the FIR itself was against one particular individual and without even the criminal case being brought to its logical conclusion, the affiliation of the School was cancelled within a span of 4 days from that date. He has highlighted the aspect that no opportunity of any manner was granted to the petitioner for taking the impugned action which has adverse civil consequences. The learned counsel has also submitted that irrelevant and extraneous considerations appear to have been taken while passing the impugned order and it was obligatory on the part of the respondent authorities to issue appropriate notice asking to show cause and give adequate opportunity.

5. Per contra, Shri Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, SSEB has defended the impugned order and has submitted that gross irregularities were found in the part of the School and its employees which had facilitated for unfair means in the HSLC examination of the year 2024. He has submitted that strict action was required to be taken which was done by passing of the impugned order. The learned Standing Counsel has also submitted that Regulation 23 of the Regulation on Permission and Recognition of Schools of the Board, 2016 (Regulation) holding the field also provides for preferring an appeal by the aggrieved person and without exhausting such remedy, the present writ petition has been filed which is liable to be dismissed. For ready reference, the Regulation 23 is quoted hereinbelow:

“23. APPEAL:

Any Institution/ School H.M aggrieved with any order passed by authorized Officer of the Board in connection with recognition or de- recognition or refusal to give permission to open classes as specified in the Regulation shall approach the Board in the form of appeal within 2 months from the date of passing the order. The Board's decision shall be final in this regard.”

6. The rival submissions have been duly considered. It is not in dispute that the impugned order is an outcome of the police case lodged 4 days before the impugned order. The complaint was lodged against a particular individual alleging malpractice in the ongoing HSLC examination and it is on record that the said criminal case ha