JUDGMENT The petitioner’s case in a nutshell is that: “The brief facts of the case is that the petitioners school namely, Raid Shabong Border Area Secondary School was established in the year 1999 to cater to the needs of the students of the area by some concerned residents of Pdeng Raid. The reason which led to the establishment of the aforesaid school was due to the fact that the students of the Raid Shabong Area found it difficult to enroll themselves to Class VIII in a Secondary School after passing Class VII from the various Upper Primary Schools of the area including the Upper Primary Govt. School. At that relevant point of time the only existing Secondary School of the area was the St. Anthony’s High School Pynursla which caters to the students after passing Class VII and the same was at a distance. After the school was established, the respondent No. 4, vide Order dated 3.5.2000 granted permission for opening of Class VIII. The said permission was granted; the petitioner’s school started functioning smoothly without any interference from any quarter. It is pertinent to mention herein that the petitioner’s school is also situated adjacent to the school of respondent No. 7. The petitioner’s school after being granted permission for opening of Class VIII in the year 2000, made steady progress and by 2002, the petitioner’s school had also started sending students to appear for Secondary School Leaving Certificate (S.S.L.C) Examinations. Infact, the respondent No. 2 had the occasion of visiting the petitioner’s school on 29.3.2004 and on being as satisfied vide order dated 31.03.2004, granted permission to the petitioner’s school for opening of Class IX and X w.e.f. 1.4.2004. Subsequently, in compliance to the order dated 31.03.2004, the respondent No. 4, vide order dated 21.05.2004 also granted permission to the petitioner’s school for opening of Class IX and X. In the year 2010, the Meghalaya Board of School Education (M.B.O.S.E) vide Order No. 70, dated 11.08.2010 granted Provincial Recognition to Classes IX and X to various schools including the petitioner’s school w.e.f. 01.08.2010 to 01.08.2013. The consequence thereof was that the students appearing for S.S.L.C Examination from the petitioner’s school were treated as Regular Candidates and no longer as Private Candidates. As such, the petitioner’s school became a full fledged secondary school in all respects. The consequence thereof was that the students appearing for S.S.L.C Examination from the petitioner’s school were treated as Regular Candidates and no longer as Private Candidates. As such, the petitioner’s school became a full fledged secondary school in all respects. Ever since the petitioner’s school was established in the year 1999, the school had been facing difficulties in payment of salaries of the teacher and developing the infrastructure of the school as the residents of Pdeng Raid is the sole body that support and funds the requirements of the school. It is pertinent to state herein that upto 2000, the teachers were not paid salaries but only an honorarium. It was only after the year 2002 that the petitioner’s school was granted grant in aid for Science Teachers by the respondents as a result of which the management of the school was able to pay salaries to its teachers and was able to improve the infrastructure of the school to a certain extent. So far as academic aspect is concerned, the petitioner’s school in the past had been regularly sending students for S.S.L.C Examinations and has been achieving remarkable passing percentage. In the year 2012, inspite of the petitioner’s school being established since 1999 as a Secondary School with due official recognition and assistance, they were shocked to discover and learn that the respondents has upgraded the Respondent No. 7’s school namely, Raid Shabong Border Area Government Upper Primary School to a Secondary School by completely ignoring the existence of the petitioner’s Secondary School. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner then submitted a letter dated 03.12.2012 requesting the Respondent No. 4 to take over the petitioner’s school rather than upgrading the Respondent No. 7’s school, considering the fact that the petitioner’s school has been in existence as the only Secondary School since 1999. Even on the receipt of the same, the respondents failed to evoke any response. The petitioner filed an application dated 13.05.2013 under the Right to Information Act requesting for some detains regarding the reasons for upgradation of Respondent No. 7’s school. Pursuant to the same, the respondents then vide letter dated 23.05.2013 furnished the petitioner the information requested for. Recently the students of the petitioner’s school had approached the Respondent No. 8 for registration of their names for the purpose of appearing in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate (S.S.L.C) Examination. Pursuant to the same, the respondents then vide letter dated 23.05.2013 furnished the petitioner the information requested for. Recently the students of the petitioner’s school had approached the Respondent No. 8 for registration of their names for the purpose of appearing in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate (S.S.L.C) Examination. However, to their surprised, they were issued a form and mistakenly shown as students belonging to the Respondent No. 7’s school. Vide letter dated 11.11.2013 then requested the Respondent No. 8 to correct the name of the petitioner’s school which was wrongly entered in the application form. The petitioner has come to learn that till date there is no student from the Respondent No. 7’s school appearing in the Secondary School Leaving Certificate (S.S.L.C) Examination. On coming to learn about the upgradation of the respondent’s school to a secondary school, the headmen of 5(five) villages submitted a joint letter to the Respondent No. 5 requesting that assistance be provided to the petitioner’s school under the Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiskha Abhiyan Scheme instead of upgrading the Respondent No. 7’s school to a secondary school under the Scheme. The Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiskha Abhiyan Scheme was formulated by the Central Government with the objective of providing universal access to Secondary and Higher Secondary Education within a radius of 5 Km to every neighbourhood of the country. Further, the Scheme intends to improve existing secondary schools or open new secondary schools if the need so arises and after following a proper procedure laid down under the scheme. To achieve its objective of providing universal access to Secondary and Higher Secondary Education also provides for decentralization of school education. Inspite of the respondents knowing fully well of the existence of the petitioner’s school being a secondary school and in utter disregard to the Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiskha Abhiyan Scheme have in a malafide and extraneous consideration upgraded the Respondent No. 7’s school to a Secondary School. It is pertinent to state herein that the Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiskha Abhiyan Scheme provides that opening of new secondary should be based on school mapping exercise and to spread secondary education within 5 Km radius of every neighbourhood. In the instant case the respondents in a discriminatory and arbitrary exercise of power upgraded Respondent No. 7’s school without conducting any school mapping exercise which is in violation of the Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiskha Abhiyan Scheme. In the instant case the respondents in a discriminatory and arbitrary exercise of power upgraded Respondent No. 7’s school without conducting any school mapping exercise which is in violation of the Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiskha Abhiyan Scheme. As such it is a fit case for interference of this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India”. 2. Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, learned Sr. counsel appearing for and on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner?s school called “Raid Shabong Border Area Secondary School, Pynursla” was established sometime in the year 1999 to cater service to the students of the villagers in the village situated nearby and since then, the school is functioning properly and educated many children in the area. The school is run by the villagers partially as well as the fees collected from the students. As a result, the school could not develop much pertaining to infrastructure and other facilities which are required for the benefit of the students of the area. The learned counsel further argued that, if the Government desires, may take over the school for the benefit of the children of the locality. 3. On the other hand, Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned Sr. GA appearing for the State respondents submits that, the scheme „Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiskha Abhiyan Scheme? (For short “RMSA”) is specially meant for the Government Secondary School only, as such, they are not in a position to give the financial aid under the said scheme. Besides that, the school is overcrowded as such; from that point of view also the school is not entitled to get the aid under the RMSA Scheme as it was the policy of the Central Government. 4. After hearing the submissions advanced by Mr. H.S. Thangkhiew, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned Sr. GA appearing for the State respondents, I am of the considered view that, since it is the policy of the Government, it will not be wise on my part to impose any direction at this stage, but it will be proper for the petitioner to file a fresh representation stating all the facts and the Government should consider their representation keeping in mind the benefit and future of the students those who are studying in the school “Raid Shabong Border Area Secondary School, Pynursla”. 5. 5. Let the petitioner file a representation within 2(two) weeks from the date of this judgment and order and let the State respondents disposed of their representation within 3(three) months from the date of receipt of representation. 6. Both the learned Sr. counsels also expressed the same view. Hence, this matter stands disposed of with the above observation and direction. 7. The Registry is directed to furnish a copy of this judgment and order to both the learned Sr. counsels by tomorrow. 8. The matter stands disposed of.