SUSHIL KUMAR SEN Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE are two important articles in the constitution which protect the cultural and educational rights of the people of the country. They are Articles 29 and 30 and these have been incorporated in the part dealing with the mental rights. Of these two provisions, the one with which we are mainly concerned is Article 30 which sates that -

(2.) THE petitioners are attached to a minority institution the same being "Vivekanand Vidya Mandir M. E. School." There is no denial that this school belongs to the Bengali community who have to be regarded as a linguistic minority in this State. What has led the petitioners to approach this Court is reconstitution of the Managing Committee of the School by an order passed on 4-6-82. By that order during the continuance of the period of the earlier Managing Committee of which the two petitioners are the members, a new Committee was brought into existence. It may be stated that the earlier Committees had been constituted by an order passed on 20-7-81 and it was to work for a period of three years. As such, there is no dispute that the new Committee has seen its birth during the period the old Committee would have otherwise continued. The grievance of the petitioners is that the old Committee was dissolved arbitrarily and without giving any opportunity in the matter. Shri Sarma contends that by doing so, Article 30 of the Constitution has also been violated.

(3.) THUS , though we find a power in the Inspector of Schools to dissolve and reconstitute the Managing Committee at any time, this is subject to two conditions: (a) the circumstances must so demand; and (b) this must be subject to the approval of the Director of Public Instruction, save in those cases where approval may be presumed to have been obtained under the general or special power. There is absolutely nothing on record before us to show the circumstances which had led the Inspector of Schools to dissolve the Committee formed on 20th July 1981. Shri Bhuyan refers to the affidavit-in-opposition of respondents Nos. 5 and 12 who are the members of the newly reconstituted Managing Committee to urge that there were serious allegations against the old Committee, to substantiate which some documents have been enclosed with the affidavit. Of these, Annexure A is dated 4-4-81 and as such cannot be related to anything done by a Committee which came into existence on 20th July 1981. We do not propose to pursue this matter on the averments in this affidavit because these respondents cannot throw light as to what had led the Inspector of Schools to exercise its power under Rule 6. In the absence of any affidavit from him, or of connected records, before us, we have no alternative but to conclude that the present was a case of ultra wires exercise of power. This in itself is enough to set aside the impugned order.