NUR MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing Dr. B. Ahmed, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. N. Sarma, the learned standing counsel for the Education (Elementary) Department, Assam at length, I am of the view that this writ petition is not maintainable due to non-exhaustion of alternative remedy.

(2.) The petitioners, numbering 17 of them, are parents/guardians of students reading at different class in Juthangbasti L.P. School, which is located in the district of Nagaon, Assam. The respondent No. 3 by the order dated 6-2- 2015 had approved the constitution of the School Management Committee with the respondent No. 5 as the President and the petitioner No. 4 (Mrs. Hasnara Begum) as the Vice-President of the School Management Committee. The petitioners had raised objection against the approval by the respondent No. 3 of the name of the respondent No. 5 as the President on the ground that he is not a parent or guardian of any student of the school.

(3.) According to the petitioners, the petitioner No. 4 was actually the one who was nominated as President of the school and not the respondent No. 5, who was rather nominated as the Vice-President, but, through fraud, the respondent No. 5 was shown to be the President. Without properly scrutinizing the meeting proceeding dated 17-11-2014, the respondent No. 3 mechanically gave his approval to the nomination of the respondent No. 5 as the President of the school. On coming to know of this, the guardians of the students filed representations to the respondent No. 3, who, upon hearing all concerned, issued the order dated 2-4-2015 and modified the order dated 6-2-2015 by approving the petitioner No. 4 as the President and the respondent No. 5 as the Vice-President of the school. Aggrieved by this, the respondent No. 5 filed WP(C) No. 2089 of 2015 before this Court and obtained the interim order dated 2-4-2015 suspending the operation of the said order dated 2-4-2015. The petitioner No. 5 is arraigned as the respondent No. 4 in that writ petition. Thus, the net effect of the interim order dated 9-4-2015 is that the respondent No. 5 continues to be the President of the SMC of the school until and unless the same is interfered with by the appellate Court or vacated by the same Court. In the instant case, the petitioners are seeking the quashing of the selection of the respondent No. 5 as Member/President of the SMC made in violation of Rule 13(1)(ii) and Rule 13(1)(ii)(b) of the Assam Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2011 and of suspending the functioning of the respondent No. 5 as the President of the SMC and of allowing the petitioner No. 4 to function as the President of the SMC. What is noteworthy is that once this Court, rightly or wrongly, had issued the interim order suspending the operation of the order dated 2-4-2015 by which the name of the petitioner No. 4 was approved by the respondent No. 3 as the President of the SMC, the question of quashing the selection of the respondent No. 5 as the President of the SMC or of suspending his functioning in that capacity cannot arise for the simple reason the status of the respondent No. 5 as the President of the SMC is under the protective umbrella of the interim order of this Court. The petitioners should have filed an application for vacation of the said interim order obtained by the respondent No. 5 in the same writ petition or should have pursued such an application, if already filed by them. Such remedy shall have to be exhausted by them before filing another writ petition of cognate nature which resulted in multiplicity of proceedings.