JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. (sic) raging controversy bears on the issue of amalgamation of the (sic) Road Vidyapith High School ('the High School') and the Zoo Road (sic) Middle English School ('the Middle School'). The parties were (sic) in a series of litigations preceding the instant proceedings and (sic), a resolution appeared to be a possibility hi terms of the (sic) and order dated 13.6.2007, passed in WP(C) 6683/2005 and (sic) No. 1206/2005, afresh bout has surfaced. Whereas, WP(C) No. (sic)/2007, witnesses a challenge to the orders dated 7.11.2007 and (sic), passed by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of (sic), Education Department and the Director of Secondary (sic), Assam, respectively deciding against the amalgamation of (sic) aforementioned two institutions, in WP(C) No. 799/2008, the order (sic) 18.2.2008 of the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government (sic), Education (Secondary) Department, directing amalgamation (sic), has been assailed. (sic) submitted at the Bar that WP(C) No. 6061/2007, in face of the (sic) impugned in WP(C) No. 799/2008, has been rendered infructuous. (sic) court by order dated 3.3.2008, passed in WP(C) No. 799/2008, (sic) maintenance of status quo with regard to the arrangement (sic) the Schools involved as on that date. (sic) have heard Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, senior advocate assisted by Mr. (sic) Nath, and Mr. D.P. Borah, advocate for the Petitioner in WP(C) No. (sic)/2008, Mr. M.R. Pathak, learned Standing Counsel for the official (sic) and Mr. A.K. Goswami, senior advocate assisted by Ms. B. (sic), advocate for the Respondent No. 5 therein. (sic) The basic facts are indispensable and therefore, have to best out in (sic). The High School was established in the year 1981 and was (sic) in 1991. Prior thereto, the Middle School was established (sic) year 1977 and was accorded provincialisation by the Government (sic) in the year 1985. Both the Schools are located in the same (sic) and are functioning from the same building. The High School (sic) Committee claims that both the Schools availed the combined (sic) room for teachers and have common signboard, notice board (sic). According to it, these Schools solemnize the annual sports and (sic) events jointly. (sic) Government of Assam issued a notification dated 16.7.1983 for amalgamation of High Schools and Middle Schools in the State situated in the same campus. According to it, these Schools solemnize the annual sports and (sic) events jointly. (sic) Government of Assam issued a notification dated 16.7.1983 for amalgamation of High Schools and Middle Schools in the State situated in the same campus. The notification, however, inter alia, mentioned that such amalgamation would be carried out if the Managing Committees of both the High School and the Middle School agreed thereto by a resolution to the said effect. In a press release that was issued on behalf of the Government on 23/24.1.1999, it was amongst others stipulated that after the amalgamation of such schools the post of Headmaster of Middle English/Middle English Madrassa would be converted/upgraded to the post of Assistant Headmaster in the amalgamated High English/High English Madrassa. It further provided that if the Headmaster of the Middle English/Middle English Madrassa is a graduate then he/she would be upgraded to the post of Assistant Headmaster/Assistant Headmistress and if not then he/she would be transferred/adjusted against any other High English/High English Madrassa. Thereby, the graduate teachers of the amalgamated High English/High English Madrassa were decided to be upgraded to die graduate post with full pay, promotion and other service benefits as per the extant Rules. Vide letter No. B(3)S.340/2000/pt.II/76, dated 8.9.2005, the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department, conveyed the approval of the Government of Assam to the amalgamation of the High school and the Middle school involved herein with immediate effect, subject to the fulfillment of the terms and conditions referred to therein. Pursuant thereto, the Director of Secondary Education, Assam by his order dated 15.9.2005 gave effect to the aforementioned decision. 4. At this, the Managing Committee of the Middle School instituted WP(C) No. 6683/2005, impeaching the said decision. Smt. Junu Goswami, Secretary of the above Managing Committee also in her individual capacity instituted WP(C) No. 1206/2006. The Managing Committee of the High School impleaded as a Respondent in the said petitions filed its affidavit(s). While endorsing the decision impugned, it was asserted therein inter alia, that joint decision of the Managing Committee of both the schools approving amalgamation thereof, had been duly taken in a joint meeting dated 14.9.2003, and accordingly forwarded to the Government on 28.4.2005. 5. In an additional affidavit filed on behalf of the Managing Committee of the High School, the date of the meeting was, however, mentioned as 21.9.2003. 5. In an additional affidavit filed on behalf of the Managing Committee of the High School, the date of the meeting was, however, mentioned as 21.9.2003. The High School Managing Committee in WP(C) No. 6061/2007, has in fact endorsed the date of such joint meeting to be 21.9.2003. The Director of Secondary Education, Assam, in his affidavit filed in WP(C) No. 1206/2006, affirmed the approval of the Managing Committees' of the Schools attesting the amalgamation and referred to the representation dated 28.4.2005 to the said effect of the said Managing Committees. 6. Both these writ petitions were analogously heard and disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 13.6.2007, directing a fresh exercise to be undertaken in the presence of responsible officer of the Education Department in order to elicit the views of the members of the Managing Committees as well as the teaching staff of the pre-amalgamated Middle and High Schools. It was, further, observed that if on conducting the fresh process, it was determined that the views of the Managing Committee members and the teaching staff are overwhelmingly in favour of amalgamation, the impugned decision of amalgamation and the consequential order would attain finality. However, it was ruled that if the majority view was against the amalgamation and the approval was found lacking, the departmental authorities would take necessary steps for undoing the amalgamation exercise ordered on 8.9.2005, notwithstanding the fact that the schools are functioning as a single entity since that date. 7. The parties are one in affirming that thereafter meetings were held on 29.8.2007 and 30.8.2007, administered by the Director of Secondary Education, Assam. Whereas, the members of the Managing Committee and teaching staff of the Middle "School prior to amalgamation were summoned on 28.9.2000 those of the High School were heard on 30.8.2007. According to the High School Managing Committee, on the completion of the exercise, a total of 21 Managing Committee members and teachers had consented to the amalgamation, a view opposed by 15 who disapproved the amalgamation. According to the High School Managing Committee, on the completion of the exercise, a total of 21 Managing Committee members and teachers had consented to the amalgamation, a view opposed by 15 who disapproved the amalgamation. To the contrary, however, the Managing Committee of the Middle School with reference to a report dated 24.9.2007, submitted by the Director cf Secondary Education, Assam drawn up on the basis of the process undertaken, seeks to contend that the same discloses that the normal procedure was not followed in trial earlier process of amalgamation of the Schools as per the Government guidelines. It, however, avowed that out of nine (9) members of the Managing Committee of the Middle School, seven (7) voiced against the amalgamation and two in favour thereof. Similarly, out of 14 members of the staff, nine (9) were against amalgamation and four (4) in favour thereof. The Middle School Managing Committee, however, conceded that majority of the members of the Managing Committee of the High School were in favour of the amalgam. 8. In the above backdrop, the letter dated 7.11.2007, was issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Secondary) Department, revoking the order of amalgamation dated 8.9.2005 and the Schools were ordered to continue to function as separate entities. The Director of Secondary Education, Assam, was thereby required to initiate an appropriate action against the Headmaster of the High School for submitting false and fabricated affidavit in WP(C) No. 6683/2005, as well as a false proposal for amalgamation of the Schools before the Government on 28.4.2005. The Director of Secondary Education, Assam, incompliance thereof, issued the order dated 12.11.2007, implementing the aforesaid directions. By the order dated 18.2.2008, of the Commissioner & Secretary, Government of Assam, Education (Secondary) Department, these two orders by implications, stand superceded, as thereby the Schools have been directed to be amalgamated with immediate effect. 9. Mr. Mazumdar, has assertively urged that the order dated 7.11.2007, cancelling the amalgamation having been passed on an appropriate consideration of the revelations in the report dated 24.9.2007, prepared on the basis of the exercise conducted incompliance of the judgment and order dated 13.6.2007, no interference therewith was called for and, therefore, the impugned order dated 18.2.2008, is patently illegal and unsustainable in law. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the decision in favour of amalgamation totally overlooks the findings recorded in the report dated 24.9.2007 as well as the supporting materials and is, therefore, absurd and perverse as well. The impugned decision not being borne out by contemporaneous facts, is visibly erroneous and is liable to be set aside, he urged. 10. Mr. Pathak, the leaned Standing Counsel, with reference to the official records has endorsed the impugned decision, contending that it was warranted as the earlier order dated 17.11.2007, was based on a misreading of the proceedings held in pursuance of the judgment and order dated 13.6.2007 of this Court. The learned Standing Counsel also placed before this Court the relevant official records for perusal. 11. Mr. Goswami, argued that though the exercise yielding the report dated 24.9.2007, demonstrates exploration into areas not intended by this Court the essence thereof, projects overwhelming majority in favour of the amalgamation of the Schools and, therefore, the order dated 7.11.2007 to the contrary, is apparently indefensible. This Court having directed in pith to freshly elicit the views of the members of the Managing Committees and the teaching staff of the pre-amalgamated Schools on the issue of amalgamation, survey of the antecedent facts, was plainly inessential. The report dated 24.9.2007, having amply disclosed that the members of the Managing Committee and the teaching staff of the School were in majority in favour of the amalgamation, the impugned order dated 18.2.2008, have been rightly passed, he urged. 12. The pleadings of the parties and the arguments advanced, have (sic) the cautious attention of this Court. The text of the judgment (sic) order dated 13.6.2007, manifestly evince an exhaustive (sic) of the rival stands of the parties on the question of (sic) of the Schools. The operative portion thereof, which in (sic) view, was to unambiguously guide the departmental authorities (sic) to prosecute the fresh process as ordered deserves to be (sic) as hereunder: 21. In the context of the controversy on the issue of consent of the Managing Committee of the Schools, I deem it appropriate, particularly, in view of the communication dated 7.6.2005 of the Deputy Secretary of the Education Department addressed to the Director, Secondary Education, to direct the carrying out the exercise in the two Schools, in terms of the said Govt. communication dated 7.6.2005. communication dated 7.6.2005. In view of the conflicting claims, it would be appropriate to direct that proceedings are held in presence of a responsible officer of the Education Department, to elicit the views of the members of the Managing Committee as well as teaching staffs of the amalgamated ME and High School. 13. It is more than apparent from the above directions of this Court (sic) the purpose thereof, was to elicit the views of the members of the (sic) Committee as well as the teaching staff of the pre - (sic) Middle and High Schools to provide a quietus to the (sic) debate between the parties on the related issue. This Court (sic) not intend any analysis or scrutiny of the anterior facts leading (sic). This Course was adopted to remove any speck of confusion in (sic) matter and, therefore, the exercise ordered, was to determine afresh (sic) views of the members of the Managing Committee and the teaching (sic) of the pre-amalgamated High and Middle Schools for and against (sic) amalgamation thereof. In other words, the prior facts were not (sic) to have any decisive bearing on the ultimate conclusion based (sic) drill ordered. The deductions were thus required to be made (sic) on the basis of the views expressed by the members of the Managing Committee and teaching staff of the pre-amalgamated High (sic) Middle Schools. 14. The official records being File No. B(3)S.340/2000/pt.II, reveal that (sic) compliance of the directions of this Court, a hearing was conducted (sic) the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Sec) Department, and the Deputy Director of Secondary Education, Assam on 29.8.2007 and 30.8.2007, which was attended to by the members of the Managing Committee and teaching staff of both the pre-amalgamated Schools. The report dated 24.9.2007, prepared on the basis of the proceedings held, disclose that the members of the Managing committee and the teaching staff of the Middle School attended the hearing on 29.8.2007 and those of the High School on 30.8.2007. It transpires from the said report that nine (9) members of the Managing Committee and thirteen (13) of the teaching staff of the pre-amalgamated Middle School presented themselves before the aforementioned departmental authorities, Smt. Junu Goswami, the Headmistress of the School being common in both the groups. It transpires from the said report that nine (9) members of the Managing Committee and thirteen (13) of the teaching staff of the pre-amalgamated Middle School presented themselves before the aforementioned departmental authorities, Smt. Junu Goswami, the Headmistress of the School being common in both the groups. The breakup of the opinions in favour of and against amalgamation are as hereinbelow: ME School Managing Committee Sl. No. Name Designation Opinion in the written statement 1. Pratap Dutta President Against amalgamation 2. Junu Goswami Member-Secretary DO 3. J.M. Bujarbaruah Donor For amalgamation 4. Sabita Talukdar Member Against amalgamation 5. Anil Medhi -DO- For amalgamation 6. Anjana Devi -DO- Against amalgamation 7. Chandra Nath Bora -DO- -DO- 8. Subesh Ch. Sarkar -DO- -DO- 9. Rumi Begum -DO- -DO- Sl. No. Name Designation Opinion 1. Junu Goswami HM Against 2. Anita Talikdar AT Against 3. Anjumoni Baruah AT DO 4. Jemy Borgohain AT DO 5. Leitha Boro BT DO 6. Mousumi Pathak OBBT DO 7. Manoj Lahakar OBBT DO 8. Aparajita Devi AT For amalgamation 9. Nitima Devi AT DO 10. Dhaneshwar Kalita AT Against 11. Mrs. Shobham Chakravortya AT (Rtd.) DO 12. Sashi Bhushan Chakravorty AT For amalgamation 13. Jatindra medhi AT For amalgamation HIGH SCHOOL Managing Committee 1. Capt. J.M. Bujarbaruah President. 2. Ramakanta Kalita HM & Member Secretary. 3. Chandra Kr. Barua Teaching Repr. 4. Ratneswar Kalita Guardian Repr. 5. Sambhu Dutta Govt. nominee. 6. Junu Goswami Female Member Teaching Staff 1. Ramakanta Kalita HM. 2. Chandra Kt. Sarma AT. 3. Girindra Nath Deka AT. 4. Gunalata Talukdar AT. 5. Dipika Dutta AT. 6. Pranita Saikia AT. 7. Gita Kalita AT. 8. Anima Tahbildar AT. 9. Kabindra Kr. Mahanta AT. 10. Minakshi Barman AT. The report disclosed as follows: Middle School Managing Committee For Against 2 7 Middle School Teaching Staff For Against 4 9 Though, the report recorded that all the members of the Managing Committee of the preamalgamated High School favored the amalgamation and that the members of the teaching staff were also in favour thereof, it did not reveal the actual figures for reasons not discernible. 15. The records divulge that the concerned authorities on a perusal of the report formed an impression that the Schools had been amalgamated in violation of the prevalent rules and procedures and, therefore, decided to revoke the order dated 8.9.2005, approving the merger. 15. The records divulge that the concerned authorities on a perusal of the report formed an impression that the Schools had been amalgamated in violation of the prevalent rules and procedures and, therefore, decided to revoke the order dated 8.9.2005, approving the merger. A perusal of the related notes proclaims an opinion that the majority view expressed in the hearing, was against the amalgamation necessitating the annulment of the order dated 8.9.2005 in terms of the directions of this Court. The order dated 7.11.2007, referred to hereinabove, was thereafter passed by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Assam, Education (Sec.) Department. The order dated 12.11.2007 of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, was only consequential thereto. 16. It appears from the records that thereafter the issued was reviewed at the level of the Commissioner & Secretary, Education (Elementary) Department, who in his note dated 25.1.2008, forwarded to the departmental Minister, indicated that on a scrutiny of the records pertaining to the hearing, 20 persons were found in favour of the amalgamation and 15 against, whereas 2 did not express any opinion. The note also testifies the consideration of the statements made by the persons in the hearing expressing their views. This authority express that though in the hearing, majority was in favour of the amalgamation the note acted upon earlier culminating in the order dated 7.11.2007, suggested that the majority was against the amalgamation. The recommendation for setting aside the order dated 7.11.2007 and restoring the original order of amalgamation having been approved at the highest administrative level, the impugned order dated 18.2.2008 was passed. 17. On a perusal amongst others of the statements of the members of the Managing Committee and the teaching staff of the preamalgamated High School, it appears that except Shri Gunaiata Talukdar (Sl. No. 4 in the list of the teaching staff of the High School), who attended the meeting, all others had aired their views in favour of amalgamation. Out of the 6 members of the Managing Committee of the preamalgamated High School, even if the view of Smt. Junu Goswami (Headmistress of the preamalgamated Middle School), against amalgamation is excluded the 5 other members endorsed the same. The breakup of views vis-a-vis the High School, therefore, emerges as follows: High School Managing Committee For Against 5 1 High School Teaching Staff For Against 9 0 One did not express his opinion. 18. The breakup of views vis-a-vis the High School, therefore, emerges as follows: High School Managing Committee For Against 5 1 High School Teaching Staff For Against 9 0 One did not express his opinion. 18. Summing up the figures depicting the votes in favour and against (sic) amalgamation for both the Schools, it is apparent that whereas, (sic) favored amalgamation, the move was opposed by 17. Thus, (sic) if the number referred to in the note dated 25.1.2008, varies from (sic) referred to hereinabove, gatherable from the report dated (sic), the views in favour of amalgamation outweigh those against (sic) and, therefore, in terms of the letter and spirit of the directions (sic) in the judgment and order dated 13.6.2007, the impugned (sic) dated 18.2.2008, cannot be faulted with. The orders dated (sic) and 12.11.2007, are not only inconsistent with the factual (sic) available on the records, but also are obviously repugnant to (sic) essence of the earlier verdict of this Court. The order dated 18.2.2008, (sic) been passed on a correct appreciation of the recorded facts in deference to the directions of this Court, no interference therewith, is called for. 19. In view of the above, WP(C) No. 799/2008, stands dismissed. WP(C) No. 6061/2007, is closed as infructuous. No costs. Petition dismissed