JUDGMENT AND ORDER A.K. Goswami, J. - Heard Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 5; Mr. K. R. Patgiri, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 4; and Mr. R. M. Deka, learned Standing counsel, Elementary Education Department, appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. The pleaded facts in the writ petition may be noticed at the outset. 3. The case of the petitioner, in short, is that after expiry of the tenure of the School Management Committee (for short, 'SMC') of No. 2422/B Patimari L.P. School, in terms of the instructions issued by the departmental authority for formation of a new SMC, a general meeting was held on 16.12.2014 with the parents/guardians of the students of the said school. In the said meeting, respondent No. 5 was selected as the President and the petitioner was selected as Vice-President of the SMC and, as per Rule 13(3)(iv) of the Assam Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules'), the school authority submitted the proposal, in prescribed format, along with a resolution of the meeting dated 16.12.2014 to the respondent No. 3 to accord approval as per Rule 13(3)(v) of the Rules, in prescribed approval order in Form No. IV appended to the Appendix of the Rules. It is pleaded that the writ petitioner read up to Class-X and the respondent No. 5 up to Class-VIII. Thereafter, in terms of the provision of Rule 13(3)(v) of the Rules, the District Elementary Education Officer, Dhubri, considering the comparative educational qualification, aptitude, willingness to work, etc., approved the name of the petitioner as President and the name of the respondent No. 5 as Vice-President of the SMC by his communication dated 23.03.2015. By the said communication, the Member-Secretary of the SMC was instructed to hold the first meeting of the SMC within fifteen days of the issue of the said letter. The first meeting of the new SMC was held on 25.03.2015 and since the date of the first meeting, the petitioner was functioning as President and the respondent No. 5 as the Vice-President. Joint bank account was also opened in the name of the petitioner and the Member-Secretary of the SMC and construction of the school building was also started by the present SMC. Joint bank account was also opened in the name of the petitioner and the Member-Secretary of the SMC and construction of the school building was also started by the present SMC. However, without any notice, by the impugned order dated 06.06.2015, the approval order dated 23.03.2015 was changed by the District Elementary Education Officer, Dhubri, by directing that the respondent No. 5 would act as the President of the SMC and the petitioner as the Vice-President. It is against the said order of the District Elementary Education Officer, Dhubri, dated 06.06.2015, the writ petition was filed by the petitioner. 4. While issuing notice of motion on 22.06.2015, this Court stayed the order dated 06.06.2015, as an interim measure, till the next returnable date. The said interim order was extended from time to time. 5. The respondent No. 5 filed an Interlocutory Application on 19.09.2015 for vacating the interim order dated 22.06.2015, which was registered as I.A. 1714/2015. After filing of the said application by the respondent No. 5, an Interlocutory Application was also filed by the present petitioner on 08.10.2015 for extension of the interim order dated 22.06.2015 on the ground that because of non-disposal of the I.A. 1714/2015 within the time prescribed under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India, the interim order may stand vacated. This application filed by the writ petitioner was registered as I.A. 1974/2015. In I.A. 1714/2015, the petitioner also filed affidavit. In the writ petition, affidavits have been filed individually by the respondent No. 4 as well as by the respondent No. 3. 6. While the writ petition and the Interlocutory Applications were listed, on the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition was taken up for disposal. The prayer of the learned counsel for respondent No. 5 to treat the application filed by him for vacation of the interim order as the affidavit in the writ petition was not objected to by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and, accordingly, the hearing had progressed. While hearing the case on 03.02.2016, this Court requested Mr. R. M. Deka, learned standing counsel for the respondent department, to produce the original records and, accordingly, to-day Mr. Deka has produced the relevant records. 7. While hearing the case on 03.02.2016, this Court requested Mr. R. M. Deka, learned standing counsel for the respondent department, to produce the original records and, accordingly, to-day Mr. Deka has produced the relevant records. 7. In the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3, it is stated that the general meeting was held on 16.12.2014 for formation of SMC of the school in question in presence of Cluster Resource Centre Coordinator (CRCC). A proposal for approval of the SMC was submitted by the Block Elementary Education Officer, Bilasipara, showing the name of the respondent No. 5 at Sl. No. 1 and that of the petitioner at Sl. No. 2 and, upon receipt of the proposal, he had approved the SMC with the petitioner as the President and the respondent No. 5 as the Vice-President on the basis of higher educational qualification of the petitioner. Subsequently, there was a public demand to allow the respondent No. 5 to act as the President of the SMC and, conceding to the public demand as well as the resolution adopted in the general meeting held on 16.12.2014, the respondent No. 5 was allowed to act as the President of the SMC vide order dated 06.06.2015. It is also pleaded that in view of the interim order passed by this Court, the writ petitioner was again allowed to act as the President of the SMC and she is functioning as such. 8. In the affidavit of respondent No. 4, it is stated that the names of the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 were forwarded to the respondent No. 3 for according approval for the post of President/Vice-President and, after the respondent No. 3 had accorded approval to the constitution of the SMC vide order dated 23.03.2015, the first meeting of the SMC was held on 25.03.2015 and the same was also duly approved by the jurisdictional Block Elementary Education Officer. It is also averred that bank account was also opened in the names of the petitioner and the Member-Secretary of the SMC. 9. In the application for vacating the interim order, namely, I.A. 1714/2015, it has been asserted that in the general meeting that was held on 16.12.2014 for formation of a new SMC of the school in question, the respondent No. 5 was selected for the post of President and the petitioner for the post of Vice-President. 9. In the application for vacating the interim order, namely, I.A. 1714/2015, it has been asserted that in the general meeting that was held on 16.12.2014 for formation of a new SMC of the school in question, the respondent No. 5 was selected for the post of President and the petitioner for the post of Vice-President. It is pleaded that while forwarding the proposal in the prescribed format, the name of the petitioner had been forwarded as President of the SMC and that of the respondent No. 5 as Vice-President, which were, however, subsequently changed by the respondent No. 4 to the effect that for the post of President/Vice-President, the writ petitioner and the respondent No. 5 were selected and, after receipt of such new proforma, the District Elementary Education Officer approved the constitution of the SMC on 23.03.2015. It is averred that the respondent No. 5 read up to Class-IX and as the Headmaster/ Member-Secretary of the SMC in a secretive manner suggested the name of the petitioner for the post of President by changing the original pattern, the name of the petitioner found place as President in the approved list. Because of such illegalities, a complaint was lodged by the parents/guardians of the school and, accordingly, the order dated 06.06.2015 was issued by the District Elementary Education Officer. 10. Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the allegations made by the respondent No. 5 that respondent No. 4 had manipulated the records of the general meeting is without any foundation. He has submitted that in the said general meeting, two names, i.e., the name of the petitioner and that of respondent No. 5 were proposed for the post of President and, on toss of a coin, the respondent No. 5 was elected as the President and the petitioner as the Vice-President. The resolutions of the general meeting dated 16.12.2014 were forwarded to the departmental authorities and the District Elementary Education Officer approved the name of the petitioner as the President and that of the respondent No. 5 as the Vice-President, respectively, of the SMC. He has submitted that under the provision of Rule 13(3)(v) of the Rules, it is the prerogative of the District Elementary Education Officer to approve either of the two candidates as President and Vice-President and the general meeting cannot select President and the Vice-President. He has submitted that under the provision of Rule 13(3)(v) of the Rules, it is the prerogative of the District Elementary Education Officer to approve either of the two candidates as President and Vice-President and the general meeting cannot select President and the Vice-President. They can only select two candidates for the purpose of appointment as President and Vice-President by the District Elementary Education Officer, he submits. He has also submitted that the order dated 23.03.2015 was not challenged by the respondent No. 5 and that the District Elementary Education Officer abdicated his authority in issuing the order dated 06.06.2015 on public demand, that too, without affording any opportunity to the petitioner and without any notice. He submits that the order passed by the District Elementary Education Officer, Dhubri, is wholly without jurisdiction and, as such, the same is liable to be set aside and quashed. 11. Mr. J. Ahmed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, on the other hand, contends that the Headmaster, i.e., respondent No. 4 had changed the form of the proposal and indicated the name of the respondent No. 5 and the petitioner as President/Vice-President without mentioning the name of the respondent No. 5 in the row meant for the post of President and that of the petitioner in the row meant for post of Vice-President and because of the same the name of the petitioner came to be approved as the President of the SMC. He has submitted that the general meeting should elect two persons as President and two persons as the Vice-President and, thereafter, only the District Elementary Education Officer can approve one person each as President and Vice-President. In this connection, he has drawn the attention of the Court to Rule 13(3)(ii)(b) of the Rules. He has further submitted that there is no dispute that in the general meeting the respondent No. 5 was elected as the President and that the authority had no jurisdiction to change the opinion of the general meeting and it is precisely for the said reason that when the public demanded that wish of the parents/guardians, as reflected in the general meeting dated 16.12.2014, be fulfilled, the order dated 06.06.2015 came to be passed and, in issuing the said order, no irregularity or illegality had been committed by the District Elementary Education Officer. 12. Mr. 12. Mr. K. R. Patgiri, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 submits that he had duly forwarded the minutes of the meeting held on 16.12.2014 along with the resolutions and the form incorporating the names and, accordingly, the District Elementary Education Officer had approved the name of the petitioner as the President of the SMC. He has submitted that allegation made by the respondent No. 5 against the respondent No. 4 in I.A. 1714/2015 is absolutely unfounded. 13. Mr. Deka, on the basis of the affidavit filed, has submitted that because of the higher educational qualification of the petitioner, the name of the petitioner was approved as the President of the SMC. 14. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials on record. 15. At the outset, it will be relevant to take note of the relevant provisions of the Rules: “13. (1) Composition and functions of the School Management Committee for the purposes of section 21:- (i) A School Management Committee shall be formed for each school. This would be a permanent Body of which, the President and Members shall have a term of three years. However, they shall continue to function beyond three years till the new President and Members take over. Efforts should be made to form the new Committee one month before the expiry of the term of the outgoing Committee. (ii) Nine members shall be from parents/or Guardians of the students of the School in the following manner: - (a) Among parent/guardian members, three shall be from disadvantaged groups or weaker section and one of them shall be from parents/guardians of disabled child (if any) in the school ; (b) President and Vice President shall be selected/elected from the parents/guardians member only and one of them must be a woman; (c) No parent/guardian can be the President or Vice-President of more than one School Management Committee irrespective of the fact that his/her children study in more than one school. (iii) One member shall be from among concerned local authority of the area, where the school is situated. (iv) One member shall be from among teachers of the school concerned/local health workers/anganwadi workers. (v) One member shall be from among Gaonburah/village Headman/Community Nominee (where there is no Gaonburah/Village Headman) in the village where the school is situated. (vi) Head Teacher/Head Master shall be Member-Secretary. (iv) One member shall be from among teachers of the school concerned/local health workers/anganwadi workers. (v) One member shall be from among Gaonburah/village Headman/Community Nominee (where there is no Gaonburah/Village Headman) in the village where the school is situated. (vi) Head Teacher/Head Master shall be Member-Secretary. (vii) Minimum fifty percent of the above committee members shall be women. (2) Function of the Managing Committee:- (i) Monitor the working of the schools. (ii) Prepare and make recommendations for School Development Plan on the basis of which, grants will be made by the Government or other sources. (iii) Monitor the utilisation of the grants received from the Government, Autonomous Council or local authority or any other source. (iv) Perform such other function as may be notified by the Government. (3) Selection/election of the President and Member of SMC:- (i) The Head Master/Head Teacher of the concerned school shall convene a general meeting of parents, the adult members of the Village/Tea Garden area/Ward/NC area concerned, ward members/councilor, Gaonburah/Village Headman, Local Health Worker/Aganwadi Workers within fifteen (15) days from the date of receiving the intimation from the competent authority to constitute the SMC. He /She has to give 7 (seven) days advance intimation to the concerned invitee regarding the date, time, objectives and venue of the meeting and also fix it on the notice board of the school and at least 4-5 prominent places in the villages/ward concerned. (ii) The meeting shall be organised on a convenient date so that at least seventy percent (70%) of parent of the students of schools, adult members of the respective villages/ward of the school and the ex-officio members to be inducted in the committee remain present and take part in the proceeding. Any of the senior persons present in the meeting may preside over the meeting. (iii) Selection of the President, Vice-President and members of SMC shall be made by the parents/guardians of the students of the school among themselves in a meeting specially convened for the purpose by the Head master of the concerned school as far as possible in a unanimous manner. In case of failure to select the President, Vice-President and the members unanimously the procedure of election by casting votes of parents/guardians may be adopted subject to the approval of the observer. In case of failure to select the President, Vice-President and the members unanimously the procedure of election by casting votes of parents/guardians may be adopted subject to the approval of the observer. The Deputy Inspector of Schools/District Elementary Education Officer/Sub Inspector of Schools shall be present in the meeting as observer and ensure holding of such election in a free and fair manner with participation of maximum member of parents/guardians. (iv) The meeting shall select/elect the required number of members in the manner as indicated under serial nos. (ii) to (vii) of sub-rule (1) of rule 13. The resolution adopted in the meeting shall clearly indicate the names of the members of the SMC so selected/elected and also indicate the name of two persons selected/elected for the posts of President/Vice-President respectively. The resolution shall contain the signature of each and every parents/guardians present in the meeting and shall be submitted to the District Elementary Education Officer concerned within two days from the date of adoption of such resolution. (v) The District Elementary Education Officer, after examining the resolution, shall approve the name of one person as President and the other person as the Vice-President out of the names of two persons selected/elected by the parents/guardians for the purpose, considering the comparative educational qualification, aptitude and willingness to work for the betterment of the school of these two persons, along with the name of members as per resolution adopted in the meeting within three days from the date of receipt of the resolution and provide a copy of the approval order in Form No. IV to the concerned SMC. (vi) The concerned District Elementary Education Officer will ensure receiving of the proposals from SMC and get it approved within a month from the date of intimation given to the SMC concerned for its constitution. (vii) The community nominee should have sound knowledge and solid background of educational development activities. (viii) The SMC, by a resolution may co-opt two educationists/senior citizens as adviser of the SMC. However, the advisors will neither be treated as members of the SMC nor will have any right of voting in decisions taking matter of the SMC concerned. (ix) The teacher of any school can be parent members of SMC other than the school in which they are teaching but in no case he/she may be the President/Vice President of that SMC. (ix) The teacher of any school can be parent members of SMC other than the school in which they are teaching but in no case he/she may be the President/Vice President of that SMC. (x) The Constitution of new SMC shall come into effect from the date of the issue of the approval order by the Deputy Inspector of Schools/. Block Elementary Education Officer.” 16. A perusal of the rules would go to show that a School Management Committee shall be formed for each school which should be a permanent body of which the President and the Members shall have a term of three years. Provision is also made that they shall continue to function beyond three years till the new President and Members take over and efforts should be made to form the new committee one month before the expiry of the term of the existing committee. Amongst the members of the SMC, nine members shall be from the parents/guardians of the students, who are to be selected in the manner prescribed in Clause (a), (b) and (c) of Rule 13(1)(ii) of the Rules. Rule 13 (1)(ii)(b) of the Rules provides that the President and the Vice-President shall be selected/elected from the parents/guardians members only and one of them must be woman. No parent/guardian can be President/Vice-President of more than one School Management Committee irrespective of the fact as to whether his or her children are studying in more than one school. Detail composition of the nine members is not an issue in this case and, therefore, it may not be necessary to refer to the said provisions. 17. Rule 13(3) deals with the selection/election of the President and the members of the SMC. Rule 13(3)(i) provides that the Headmaster/Member-Secretary of the concerned school shall convene general meeting of the parents, the adult members of the village/tea garden area/ ward/NC area concerned, ward members/councilor/Gaonburah/Village Headman, Local Health Worker/Anganwadi Workers within fifteen days from the date of receiving the intimation from the competent authority to constitute the SMC. He/she has to give seven days' advance intimation to the concerned invitee regarding the date, time, objectives and venue of the meeting. Fixation of the notice on the notice board of the school and at least 4/5 prominent place of the village/ward concerned is also prescribed. He/she has to give seven days' advance intimation to the concerned invitee regarding the date, time, objectives and venue of the meeting. Fixation of the notice on the notice board of the school and at least 4/5 prominent place of the village/ward concerned is also prescribed. Rule 13(3)(ii) stipulates that meeting should be organised on a convenient date so that at least 70% of parent of the students of the school, adult members of the respective villages/wards and the Ex-officio members to be inducted can remain present. It also provides for presiding over of the meeting by any senior person present. 18. Rule 13(3)(iii) provides for selection of President/Vice-President and Members of the SMC by the parents/guardians of the students of the schools, amongst others, in a meeting, which is to be specially convened for the purpose by the Headmaster of the concerned school, as far as possible in an unanimous manner. In case of failure to select President/Vice-President unanimously, the procedure of election by casting votes by the parents/guardians may be adopted subject to the approval of the observer. The Deputy Inspector of Schools/District Elementary Education Officer/Sub-Inspector of Schools are required to be present in the meeting as observer and ensure holding of such election in a free and fair manner with participation of maximum member of parents/guardians. 19. The argument of Mr. Ahmed that two persons each for the post of President and Vice-President should be selected/elected in the general meeting and that of Mr. Khan that in the general meeting only two persons are to be selected/elected without any reference to either as President or Vice-President are mentioned only to be rejected at the threshold as such contentions have got no merit. Rule 13(3)(iii) of the Rules based on which they have made their such submissions, do not even remotely suggest such a scenario. 20. The petitioner has annexed as Annexure-1 a vernacular version of the minutes of the general meeting held on 16.12.2014 along with an English version of the relevant portion. A copy of the said minutes of the meeting held on 16.12.2014 along with identical English version thereof has been annexed by the respondent No. 5 as Annexure-1 in I.A. 1714/2015. The Agenda Item No. 2 of the said general meeting was in relation to constitution of the SMC. A copy of the said minutes of the meeting held on 16.12.2014 along with identical English version thereof has been annexed by the respondent No. 5 as Annexure-1 in I.A. 1714/2015. The Agenda Item No. 2 of the said general meeting was in relation to constitution of the SMC. A perusal of the resolution No. 2, amongst others, shows that for the post of President two names were proposed and seconded - one that of the petitioner and the other that of the respondent No. 5 and, because of that, a toss of coin was resorted to. The respondent No. 5 was selected as President on the basis of toss of coin and, accordingly, in the said resolution, the name of the respondent No. 5 was shown at Sl. No. 1 against the post of President and that of the petitioner at Sl. No. 1 as Vice-President. In all, thirteen names were there including male members, female members, etc., who were elected unanimously. Therefore, there is no dispute with regard to the selection of the respondent No. 5 as the President and that of the petitioner as the Vice-President in the said general meeting held on 16.12.2014. Both the petitioner and the respondent No. 5 had brought on record the proposal dated 16.12.2014 submitted by the Headmaster/Member-Secretary, i.e., respondent No. 4, regarding constitution of SMC showing the name of the respondent No. 5 and the petitioner under the heading “President/Vice-President” at Sl. No. 1 and Sl. 2, respectively. The original records produced by Mr. Deka go to show that the proposal forwarded by the Headmaster and counter signed by the Block Elementary Education Officer is identical with the one submitted by the petitioner as well as the respondent No. 5. There is no material on record to indicate that the name of the petitioner was forwarded as Vice-President separately and that of the respondent No. 5 as President separately and, therefore, the contention advanced by Mr. Ahmed that there were manipulations while forwarding the names is found to be totally misplaced. That apart, the resolutions adopted in the meeting held on 16.12.2014 were duly forwarded. 21. The District Elementary Education Officer had approved the name of the petitioner as the President and that of the respondent No. 5 as the Vice-President. Ahmed that there were manipulations while forwarding the names is found to be totally misplaced. That apart, the resolutions adopted in the meeting held on 16.12.2014 were duly forwarded. 21. The District Elementary Education Officer had approved the name of the petitioner as the President and that of the respondent No. 5 as the Vice-President. The said approval order was not called into question by the respondent No. 5 and the SMC had started functioning. Once having granted approval, the District Elementary Education Officer could not have cancelled the approval order in the manner as has been done by the impugned order dated 06.06.2015 without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order has to be set aside and quashed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 06.06.2015 is set aside and quashed. 22. There are certain other aspects of the matter which cannot be glossed over. 23. A perusal of Rule 13(3)(iii) of the Rules would demonstrate that a toss of coin is not envisaged for selection/election of President/Vice-President of SMC and what is provided for in a situation where there is no unanimity is casting of votes by the parent/guardian members subject to the approval of the observer. The admitted position in the instant case, as demonstrated by the affidavit filed by respondent No. 3, is that the observer was not a Deputy Inspector of Schools/District Elementary Education Officer or Sub-Inspector of Schools, as enjoined in the Rules, but the observer was one CRCC. 24. In the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 3, he has stated that initially approval order was passed by him on the basis of higher educational qualification of the petitioner. In paragraph 5 of the affidavit, the respondent No. 3 has stated as follows: “5. That the deponent begs to state that a general meeting was held on 16.12.2014 for formation of SMC of 2422/B No. Patimari LP School in the premises of the same school under the Education Block, Bilasipara, in presence of CRCC as observer. Thereafter, the BEEO, Bilasipara, submitted the proposal for approval of the SMC of 2422/B No. Patimari LP School showing the name of one Abdul Kalam Azad (Respondent No. 5) at serial No. 1 and the petitioner at serial No. 2 (Annexure-2/page 19 to the writ petition). Thereafter, the BEEO, Bilasipara, submitted the proposal for approval of the SMC of 2422/B No. Patimari LP School showing the name of one Abdul Kalam Azad (Respondent No. 5) at serial No. 1 and the petitioner at serial No. 2 (Annexure-2/page 19 to the writ petition). Upon receipt of the proposal, the office of the deponent has approved the SMC of 2422/B No. Patimari LP School under the presidentship of the petitioner and Abdul Kalam (respondent No. 5) as Vice-President on the basis of higher qualification vide order dated 23.03.2015.” 25. The original records produced by Mr. Deka do not show the reason for which the petitioner was selected as the President of the SMC. 26. No doubt, under Rule 13(3)(v) there is a discretion vested upon the District Elementary Education Officer to approve name of one person as President and another as Vice-President considering the comparative educational qualification, aptitude, willingness to work for the betterment of the school, such discretion cannot be exercised mechanically as has been done in the instant case. If the general meeting had decided to select or elect someone as the President or the Vice-President and if the District Elementary Education Officer wants to alter the position, then, that must be preceded by an objective consideration, reflected by recording of reason, as otherwise, the very purpose of holding a general meeting will be rendered otiose and nugatory and the entire exercise of selection/election of the President/Vice-President may be left to the ipse dixit of the District Elementary Education Officer, which certainly is not the objective of the Act. 27. It is correct that the order dated 23.03.2015 is not called into question, but there are serious infirmities which have come to the fore in the very process of selection/election and approval granted by the District Elementary Education Officer. Because of the infirmities which have already been noted, the question that has arisen before this Court for consideration is as to whether it will be correct to allow the writ petitioner to discharge the functions as the President. 28. While considering the above question, I am of the considered opinion that the purpose for which the Rules are conceptualized is to be given precedence. 28. While considering the above question, I am of the considered opinion that the purpose for which the Rules are conceptualized is to be given precedence. The rules are to be effectuated and, therefore, in view of the glaring shortcomings in the procedure adopted and overlooked grossly by the District Elementary Education Officer, I am of the considered opinion that in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it will be just and equitable to mould the relief available to the petitioner by directing to call a fresh meeting for selection/election of the President/Vice-President of the school in question. As the selection/election of the members are not in dispute, that part of the order dated 23.03.2015 by which SMC was constituted is not interfered with. 29. The Headmaster of the School, i.e., respondent No. 4, will now convene a general meeting as contemplated under Rule 13(3)(i), after obtaining requisite permission from the District Elementary Education Officer, within a period of six weeks from to-day and, in such meeting, the President/Vice-President shall be selected/elected as per Rules and, thereafter, the District Elementary Education Officer, Dhubri, will pass appropriate orders with regard to such selection/election. Till the exercise, as directed hereinbefore, is carried out, the petitioner will be allowed to continue as the President of the SMC of the school in question. 30. For the manner in which approval was granted by the District Elementary Education Officer, Dhubri, to the constitution of the SMC of the school in the instant case, the Court is constrained to record its displeasure. 31. The writ petition is disposed of in terms of the above observations and directions. No cost. 32. Registry will send a copy of this order to the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education (Elementary) Department. 33. The records produced by Mr. Deka is returned back.