JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Manojit Bhuyan, J. The Government of Assam in the Secondary Education Department issued Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2016 (in short “O.M. dated 22.09.2016”), laying down a scheme called Siksha Khetra for amalgamation and merger of different schools, the legality and validity of which was the bone of contention in the bunch of writ petitions before the learned Single Judge. By common judgment and order dated 21.04.2017, all the writ petitions were dismissed as being shorn of merit. Two writ appeals have been presented against the said common judgment–one by the State of Assam (W.A. 130/2017) for quashing and/or expunging the observation/directions made in paragraphs 27 and 28 of the judgment, the other by the writ petitioners in WP(C) 6685/2014 and WP(C) 6194/2016 i.e. the All Assam Middle English Teacher’s Association and another (W.A. 155/2017) challenging the common judgment as well as for quashing the O.M. dated 22.09.2016; an earlier O.M. dated 07.07.2014, which was the subject matter in WP(C) 6685/2014; the Cabinet decision of 08.09.2016 and a Report of a Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) which formed one of the basis towards issuance of the O.M. dated 22.09.2016. Before proceeding further, it is clarified that in the aforesaid WP(C) 6194/2016, the challenge was only confined to the O.M. dated 22.09.2016 sans any challenge to the Cabinet decision dated 08.09.2016 and/or the Report of the NGO. 2. The background of the O.M. dated 22.09.2016 must be noticed first. It is a scheme brought about following a research undertaken by a non-government organization called Omeo Kumar Das Institute of Social Change and Development, sponsored by the Indian Council of Social Science Research and the Government of Assam. The views of the NGO was solicited on the government’s proposal regarding amalgamation and merger of schools within the same campus or in nearby areas. Suggestions of two other entities were also considered, that of the Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA), which is a programme of the Government of India, implemented in partnership with the State Governments, with the main objective to make secondary education of good quality which is available, accessible and affordable to all young persons, and that of the views on amalgamation of schools having lesser enrollment as suggested by the Project Approval Board in its 233rd Meeting while considering the Annual Work Plan and Budget for the year 2016-2017 for Sarba Siksha Abhiyan in the State of Assam. A Cabinet Memorandum was also prepared for approval of the scheme by the State Cabinet, in which it was indicated that with a view to derive optimum services of the employees and other logistic support of the schools, it was proposed that the schools situated in the same campus or in any nearby area should be brought under one single administrative and academic unit. It was also indicated that the matter was consulted with the Finance (EC-III) Department which did not express any objection to the proposal vide endorsement dated 10.08.2016, subject to certain observations. The State Cabinet in its meeting dated 08.09.2016 approved the same, following which the O.M. dated 22.09.2016 was issued. 3. The O.M. dated 22.09.2016 provides for a scheme called Siksha Khetra with the object as aforestated. It states that there are many common campuses where different High School, M.E. School and even Lower Primary (LP) School exists, being run and administered individually with separate class routine and academic functioning. The services of teachers of one school are not shared in the other school within the same campus even in need. Shortage of teachers of one school is not addressed by the teachers of other schools functioning from the same campus. A comparison is made with the schools in private sector which are mostly composite schools having classes right from Lower Kindergarten(LKG) to Class XII, facilitating not only economy in administration and optimum utilization of services of the employees therein but also as a platform for linkage of education. The O.M. dated 22.09.2016 also takes note of the suggestions of the NGO that services of teachers, particularly in Junior Colleges, are not fully utilized and, therefore, there is need for expansion of Junior Colleges to include Classes IX and X or to merge with it the High Schools where education in only the said Classes IX and X are imparted. The focus of the O.M. dated 22.09.2016 is for deriving optimum services of the employees and for better logistical support in respect of different categories of schools located in the same campus or in any nearby area by way of amalgamation/merger and by bringing the schools under one single administrative and academic unit. The focus of the O.M. dated 22.09.2016 is for deriving optimum services of the employees and for better logistical support in respect of different categories of schools located in the same campus or in any nearby area by way of amalgamation/merger and by bringing the schools under one single administrative and academic unit. To effectuate amalgamation/merger, the O.M. dated 22.09.2016 lays down 13 (thirteen) criterions, which are essentially to be noticed: (1) All the schools situated in the same campus shall be merged with the highest School i.e. if there is Higher Secondary School in a campus, then other High School or ME School or LP or all of these schools situated in the same campus, all other schools shall be amalgamated with Higher Secondary School. Likewise, if the highest school is High school, then all other schools subordinate to the High school, shall be amalgamated with the High school. The SMC/SMDC of the highest school i.e. the Higher Secondary School or High school or ME(UP) school as the case may be, shall continue and SMC/SMDC of all others school shall stand withdrawn. However, the SMC/SMDC shall be reconstituted with inclusion of two representatives from Guardians and one from teachers of each schools amalgamated. (2) The name of the highest school in which all the schools amalgamate, shall stand. (3) The movable or immovable property of the schools shall be vested in the name of the amalgamated school. If the ME School is amalgamated with one High School, then the property of both the Schools shall be vested in the name of High School. Likewise, if the LP, ME and High School are amalgamated with the Higher Secondary School, then the property of all the Schools shall be vested in the name of Higher Secondary school. (4) In case LP or ME school is amalgamated with a High School, the Assistant teachers and other staff of the LP or ME School shall be the employee of the amalgamated School and their services shall be placed at the disposal of the Secondary Education Department. The staff pattern shall be fixed as per existing norms for a High School and the excess teaching and non-teaching employees shall be posted elsewhere against the vacant post with their seniority of the earlier school. There shall not be any financial loss and whatever the emolument they are getting shall continue after amalgamation. The staff pattern shall be fixed as per existing norms for a High School and the excess teaching and non-teaching employees shall be posted elsewhere against the vacant post with their seniority of the earlier school. There shall not be any financial loss and whatever the emolument they are getting shall continue after amalgamation. (5) In case one or more LP and one or more ME school is amalgamated, the Assistant teachers of the LP School shall be the employee of the amalgamated School and Headmaster of the ME school shall be the Headmaster of the amalgamated School. The staff pattern shall be fixed as per existing norms for a ME School and the excess teaching employees shall be posted elsewhere against the vacant post with their seniority of the earlier school. There shall not be any financial loss and whatever the emolument they are getting shall continue. The Head Teacher of the LP School shall continue to draw charge allowance till his retirement or till his posting elsewhere. (6) In case a High School is amalgamated with the Junior College, the Assistant teachers and other staff of the High School shall be the employee of the amalgamated Junior College. The staff pattern shall be fixed as per existing norms for a composite Higher Secondary School and the excess teaching and non-teaching employees shall be posted elsewhere against the vacant post with their seniority of the earlier school. The excess employees shall be identified as per seniority and the juniors shall be excess as far as possible. (7) In the event the highest school is High School, the Headmaster of the High School shall continue after amalgamation. The post of Headmaster of ME School shall be re-designated as Assistant Headmaster with same pay scale whatever they are drawing and the post shall be held by the existing Headmaster of the ME School without requiring the qualification for the post of Assistant Headmaster. However, after cessation of the services of such Assistant Headmaster, the vacancy shall be filled up from the candidates having requisite qualification as per procedure stipulated in the Service Rules in force. (8) In the event the highest school is Junior College, the Principal of the Junior College shall continue after amalgamation. However, after cessation of the services of such Assistant Headmaster, the vacancy shall be filled up from the candidates having requisite qualification as per procedure stipulated in the Service Rules in force. (8) In the event the highest school is Junior College, the Principal of the Junior College shall continue after amalgamation. The post of Headmaster of High School shall be re-designated as Vice Principal with same pay scale whatever they are drawing and the post shall be held by the existing Headmaster of the High School without requiring the qualification for the post of Vice Principal. However, after cessation of the services such Vice Principal, the vacancy shall be filled from the candidates having requisite qualification as per procedure stipulated in the Service Rules in force. (9) If two or more High Schools are located within the radius of 2 Kms then these High Schools may be merged provided that nos of student do not exceed 40 in each class. (10) If a ME School has poor enrolment i.e. less than 15 students in each class then the ME school may be merged with the nearby High School. (11) If two or more UP(ME) Schools are located within the radius of 1 Kilometer then these ME schools may be merged provided that nos of student do not exceed 40 in each class. (12) If two or more LP Schools are located within the radius of 1/2 Kilometer then these LP Schools may be merged provided that nos of student do not exceed 100 in each school. (13) Similar criteria shall be considered in case of ME Madrassa, High Madrassa and Higher Secondary Madrassa. The service conditions of the employees post merger are also indicated in the O.M. dated 22.09.2016, which are as follows: (1) The school having good infrastructure facilities together with amiable academic atmosphere and good teachers in comparison to other schools shall be base school and other schools shall be merged with that school. The senior most Headmaster shall be the Headmaster of the School after merge. If the date of joining happens to be same, then the seniority in age shall be taken in to consideration for determination of the seniority. The other Headmaster shall be the ex-officio Headmaster with the post personal to him and he shall continue to get his pay in the existing status till retirement or till posting elsewhere. If the date of joining happens to be same, then the seniority in age shall be taken in to consideration for determination of the seniority. The other Headmaster shall be the ex-officio Headmaster with the post personal to him and he shall continue to get his pay in the existing status till retirement or till posting elsewhere. (2) The name of the base school to which other schools merge, shall stand. However, the joint sessions of all the School Managing Committees shall decide the name with the approval of the District level Education Officer. (3) The movable or immovable property of the schools shall be vested in the name of the base school after merge. (4) The Assistant teachers and other staff of the schools shall be the employee of the base school. The excess teaching and non-teaching employees shall be posted elsewhere against the vacant post with their seniority of the earlier school. (5) After amalgamation the teacher of the amalgamated school shall take classes as stated below:- (a) Teachers of existing LP School in class I to V. (b) Teachers of existing ME School in class I to VIII. (c) Teachers of existing High School in class VI to X. (d) Teachers of existing HSS/Jr. College VI to XII. 4. To find out the schools eligible for amalgamation/merger in view of the provisions under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (in short “the 2009 Act”) and the norms laid down by RMSA, the O.M. dated 22.09.2016 provides for constitution of two Committees, one at the Block and the other at the District level, with designated members comprising the Committees. Procedure is laid down for obtaining approval of the Government on the proposals/recommendations made by the said Committees, which rests either with the Secondary Education Department or the Elementary Education Department, as the case may be, after consultation with the Finance Department. The Director of the concerned Directorate–Secondary or Elementary, would be the issuing authority of the order of amalgamation. A time-limit of 90 days is prescribed for completing the entire process for such amalgamation/merger with further stipulation that a proposal shall not be retained beyond 15 days in each stage. The Director of the concerned Directorate–Secondary or Elementary, would be the issuing authority of the order of amalgamation. A time-limit of 90 days is prescribed for completing the entire process for such amalgamation/merger with further stipulation that a proposal shall not be retained beyond 15 days in each stage. A grievance redressal mechanism is also provided by way of an appeal by an aggrieved Institution/public before the Government in the Secondary or Elementary Education Department, as the case may be, in case of any disputes arising out of any order of amalgamation. This is the gamut of the scheme Siksha Khetra, introduced through the O.M. dated 22.09.2016. 5. Before adverting to the grounds of challenge made in both the appeals, we may refer to two earlier Office Memorandums on the issue of amalgamation of schools. At first, O.M. dated 12.01.2005 was issued by the Government of Assam directing all Inspector of Schools in the State to finalise the amalgamation proposals of M.E. Schools with High Schools located in the same campus. This was challenged in WP(C) 677/2005 (Krishna Kanta Talukdar v. State of Assam). The writ petition was disposed of on 31.05.2011 and while doing so the Court recorded the submission advanced by the departmental counsel that amalgamation decision was not imposed from the top but based on consensus of the schools located in the same campus. A direction was, therefore, made that the O.M. dated 12.01.2005 should not be forced upon unwilling schools located in the same campus and amalgamation be undertaken only when the concerned M.E. and High Schools resolve to amalgamate their schools. The implementation of the O.M. dated 12.01.2005 was made confined to consenting and not unwilling schools within the same campus. The second O.M. dated 07.07.2014 which was issued, was assailed in WP(C) 6685/2014 by the appellant association. An interim order was passed on 19.12.2014 restraining further amalgamation until the returnable date. Incidentally, this writ petition is one in the bunch of cases dismissed vide the common judgment and order under appeal herein. Reference to the aforesaid O.M. dated 12.01.2005 is made as one of the grounds of challenge made by the appellant association is laid on the order dated 31.05.2011 passed in WP(C) 677/2005. 6. Mr. Incidentally, this writ petition is one in the bunch of cases dismissed vide the common judgment and order under appeal herein. Reference to the aforesaid O.M. dated 12.01.2005 is made as one of the grounds of challenge made by the appellant association is laid on the order dated 31.05.2011 passed in WP(C) 677/2005. 6. Mr. R.C. Saikia, learned counsel for the appellants in WA 155/2017 limits his challenge to the O.M. dated 22.09.2016 on the following grounds: (i) Rule 14(3) of the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialisation) Service Rules, 2003 (in short “the 2003 Rules”) would come in the way of Headmasters and teachers of ME Schools from becoming Assistant Headmaster of High School. Also, in case of amalgamation and merger, Rule 3(ii) and 4(ii) of the Assam Secondary Education (Middle English Schools and High Schools) (Provincialisation) Rules, 1979 (in short “the 1979 Rules”) would be violated; (ii) Though a Headmaster of an ME and MEM School, on merger with a High School, would be designated as Assistant Headmaster of the High School, the same would be meaningless unless such posts of Assistant Headmasters/Assistant Headmistresses are created. Submission made is that there are no post of Assistant Headmaster/Assistant Headmistress in High Schools in Assam after 1986; (iii) The O.M. dated 22.09.2016 imposes forcible amalgamation and, therefore, is clearly in violation of the order dated 31.05.2011 passed in WP(C) 677/2005 whereby, on a challenge made to a similar O.M. dated 12.01.2005, this Court had directed amalgamation only among consenting and not unwilling schools located in the same campus; (iv) The dignity and honour of the teachers of ME and MEM Schools have been compromised, more particularly in respect of the Headmasters of ME and MEM Schools, who are the Drawing and Disbursing Officers by virtue of being the head of the concerned institution. But on amalgamation they would not only forego their independence and authority but become subordinate to Headmasters of the High Schools to which it is amalgamated, many of whom may perhaps be their students at ME and MEM level. This is nothing short of abject humiliation; (v) The policy decision involving amalgamation and merger is arbitrary, capricious and violative of fundamental rights. As such, the same is liable to be interfered with. 7. Answering the challenges in seriatim, we find that arguments made on Rule 3(ii) and 4(ii) of the 1979 Rules are without substance. This is nothing short of abject humiliation; (v) The policy decision involving amalgamation and merger is arbitrary, capricious and violative of fundamental rights. As such, the same is liable to be interfered with. 7. Answering the challenges in seriatim, we find that arguments made on Rule 3(ii) and 4(ii) of the 1979 Rules are without substance. Rule 3 provides for the minimum requirement, as on the fixed date, for a High School to have the services of its employees provincialised and in clause (ii) thereof the minimum qualification prescribed for teachers of High Schools is Graduation. Similarly, in respect of teachers of Middle English Schools, the minimum qualification prescribed under Rule 4(ii) is Normal, Matric or Intermediate passed in case of Assistant Teaches and Graduation in the case of Headmaster. The proviso in both Rule 3(ii) and 4(ii) empowers the Government to relax any of the minimum requirements in the public interest in the areas prescribed in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. The provisions of Rule 3(ii) and 4(ii), in our considered opinion, cannot be read divorced from the objective of the 1979 Rules, which is, on the eligibility of High Schools and Middle English Schools for provincialiasion. On the issue that Rule 14(3) of the 2003 Rules would come in the way of the Headmasters and Assistant Teachers of ME Schools from becoming Assistant Headmasters of High Schools, it is seen that Rule 14(3) provides that in case of amalgamated High School, the Headmaster/Headmistress of the ME School is eligible for selection as Assistant Headmaster/Assistant Headmistress if he/she have at least 5(five) years of teaching experience in ME School as its founder Headmaster/Headmistress or have at least 10(ten) years of teaching experience in ME School if not its founder Headmaster/Headmistress. What the scheme Siksha Khetra provides is that on amalgamation the Headmaster/Headmistress of ME School would be re-designated as Assistant Headmaster/Assistant Headmistress of the amalgamated High School even if he/she does not possess the requisite qualification. In this regard, we are in agreement with the observation made by the learned Single Judge that in order to give effect to the scheme, which strives for excellence and in improving the quality of education complementing public interest, the Rules can be suitably amended. An exercise to this end at the earliest would be sine qua non to the effective implementation of the scheme. An exercise to this end at the earliest would be sine qua non to the effective implementation of the scheme. Besides this, the Court does not find any strong and compelling reasons to interfere with the scheme on the above ground of challenge. 8. As regards the second contention that unless posts of Assistant Headmaster/Assistant Headmistress are created in High Schools, the exercise for designating a Headmaster/Headmistress of ME and MEM School as Assistant Headmaster/Assistant Headmistress of High School would be meaningless, an answer to this can be had from the Rule 14 of the 2003 Rules itself which contemplates and includes, amongst others, the procedure for recruitment to such post of Headmaster/Assistant Headmistress of High Schools. In this connection, we take judicial notice of the document furnished by the Senior Additional Advocate General, Assam, which is a Notice dated 03.08.2017 issued by the Government of Assam in the Office of the Director of Secondary Education, Assam, notifying the district-wise and school-wise approved list, which also contains the names of teachers recommended for promotion to existing vacant posts of Assistant Headmasters in various provincialised High Schools in the State. On this ground alone, the challenge so made is not found sustainable. 9. Indeed, an order was passed on 31.05.2011 in WP(C) 677/2005 in the context of an Office Memorandum dated 12.01.2005. The said Office Memorandum was issued by the Government directing all Inspector of Schools in the State to finalize the amalgamation proposals of ME Schools with High Schools situated in the said campus. The order passed by the Court on 31.05.2011 records the submission of the departmental counsel who also referred to letter dated 01.02.2005 of the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Education Department as well as to the letter dated 16.07.1983 issued by the Government to the Director of Public Instruction, Assam, both respectively indicating that amalgamation of schools within the same campus was done at the request of the Managing Committees of the schools concerned and not forcibly imposed upon by the Government. By making such reference, the departmental counsel had submitted that the decision to amalgamate was not imposed from the top but done only when the concerned schools in a single campus agreed on it. By making such reference, the departmental counsel had submitted that the decision to amalgamate was not imposed from the top but done only when the concerned schools in a single campus agreed on it. On such submission, the order dated 31.05.2011 was rendered by directing that the Office Memorandum dated 12.01.2005 should not be forced upon unwilling schools located in the same campus and amalgamation should be undertaken only when the concerned ME and High Schools resolve to agree for amalgamation. The Court directed implementation of the Office Memorandum only among the consenting and not on unwilling ME and High Schools operating from a single campus. A perusal of the said order makes it absolutely clear that the direction contained in the Court’s order dated 31.05.2011 was rendered only in the context of the Office Memorandum dated 12.01.2005 and also having regard to the submissions made by the departmental counsel. This order cannot be made applicable to the present Office Memorandum dated 22.09.2016 so as to injunct or annul the implementation of the same on ground that it violates the aforesaid Court’s order dated 31.05.2011. We, therefore, find that the challenge made to the scheme on ground that the same stands vitiated on account of being contrary to the Court’s order dated 31.05.2011 in WP(C) 677/2005, is without any legal and factual basis. 10. The apprehension expressed that the members of the appellant Association would suffer humiliation and embarrassment in the company of Headmasters of High Schools who may perhaps be their students, such a ground is wholly inadequate and inconsequential to strike down the policy decision of the Government. Such a ground does not warrant any judicial scrutiny of a policy decision. 11. The run-up to the issuance of the O.M. dated 22.09.2016 involved expert views from NGO, sponsored by the Indian Council of Social Science Research and the Government of Assam as well as the suggestions made by the Rastriya Madhyamik Siksha Abhiyan and that of the views expressed in the 233rd meeting of the Project Approval Board, as indicated above. The scheme for amalgamation and merger was also circulated through a Cabinet Memorandum and eventually the same found approval of the Cabinet on 08.09.2016 pursuant to consultation made with the Finance Department, Government of Assam. The scheme for amalgamation and merger was also circulated through a Cabinet Memorandum and eventually the same found approval of the Cabinet on 08.09.2016 pursuant to consultation made with the Finance Department, Government of Assam. Without any doubt the O.M. dated 22.09.2016 is a policy decision of the Government of Assam, which can suffer quashment only if it is predominantly arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of statutory or constitutional provisions. In the instant case, the grounds of challenge, as urged by the appellant association, can hardly partake the character of any cogent grounds to annul and/or injunct the State from exercising its executive authority in enforcing the O.M. dated 22.09.2016. As laid down by a catena of Apex Court decisions, which have been usefully referred to by the learned Single Judge, it is not for this Court to substitute its wisdom for the Government on the ground that a better formula or public policy could be evolved. It is well settled that the executive authority of the State is competent to frame a policy and it is not for the Court to cause interference unless such a policy is patently arbitrary and capricious thereby offending Article 14 of the Constitution or is in conflict with any statutory or constitutional provisions. In the present case and having regard to the grounds of challenge, the policy decision of the State, expressed in the form of the O.M. dated 22.09.2016, do not call for any interference of this Court. 12. Turning to the limited challenge made by the State in WA No.155/2017, we may reproduce paragraph 27 and 28 of the judgment under appeal for ready reference: “27. Having said that, Court is of the view that respondents should also examine the concept of “nearby area” so that there is no ambiguity in the same and in the event of any teacher or staff found in excess post amalgamation, posting them in far flung areas may be avoided. It may therefore, be useful to define the expression “nearby area” as appearing in the OM dated 22.09.2016. Furthermore, Court is of the view that those teachers who are on the verge of superannuation may not be transferred out to other schools. It may therefore, be useful to define the expression “nearby area” as appearing in the OM dated 22.09.2016. Furthermore, Court is of the view that those teachers who are on the verge of superannuation may not be transferred out to other schools. Even in the event of them being found as excess teachers, their services may be retained in the amalgamated school within the same campus till their superannuation whereafter the post may be rationalized keeping in mind the objective of the scheme. 28. It is also seen that though District Level Committees and State Level Committee have been proposed to facilitate amalgamation and merger of schools, it would be in the interest of all concerned to carry along all the stake holders in this process, and certainly, teachers are an important stake holder in this process. An unhappy teacher or a teacher with his grievance unaddressed post amalgamation would not be in a position to deliver the goods. To obviate such a situation, a grievance redressal mechanism may be put in place. That apart, views/response of the concerned schools may be called for and considered before final decision is taken on amalgamation and merger. “ Mr. D. Saikia for the State informs that he has instructions not to press the challenge to paragraph 27 above, save and except, in respect of the words “verge of superannuation” which requires to be qualified in distinct terms and not be left to have an omnibus meaning and expression. It is suggested on behalf of the State that the sentence reading as “Furthermore, Court is of the view that those teachers who are on the verge of superannuation may not be transferred out to other schools” be altered to read as “Furthermore, Court is of the view that those teachers having 1(one) year to superannuation may not be transferred out to other schools”. We find that the submission so made is reasonable and merits acceptance. In this view of the matter, we direct that necessary alteration, as indicted above, be now read into paragraph 27 of the judgment under appeal. In respect of paragraph 28 of the judgment, Mr. We find that the submission so made is reasonable and merits acceptance. In this view of the matter, we direct that necessary alteration, as indicted above, be now read into paragraph 27 of the judgment under appeal. In respect of paragraph 28 of the judgment, Mr. Saikia submits that the scheme Siksha Khetra, as portrayed in the O.M. dated 22.09.2016, having been made by the authorities on being alive to the service conditions of the employees and their future in mind, the authorities are not bound to invite views/response of the concerned schools before a final decision is taken on amalgamation and merger. It is submitted that the scheme envisages Block Level and District Level Committees to find out the schools which are eligible for amalgamation and merger. Even post amalgamation, there is provision for preferring appeal by aggrieved institutions/public before the Government in the Secondary or Elementary Education Department, as the case may be, for any disputes arising out of an order for amalgamation. Therefore, the submission is that the pre-amalgamation exercise directed to be done at paragraph 28 of the judgment, if allowed to stand, would only go to frustrate and nullify the solemn object sought to be achieved at its very threshold. We find force in the submission made by Mr. Saikia. Indeed, the existence of Committees, both to be headed by respective high-ranking officers and educationists, are envisaged in the scheme itself. The Committees are obliged to follow strict procedures to find out the schools which are eligible for amalgamation/merger. This being the position, we would not choose to put fetters by making it mandatory that views and responses of the concerned schools are to be invited and considered before any final decision is taken on amalgamation and merger and/or towards effective implementation of the O.M. dated 22.09.2016. As we do not see any arbitrariness in the policy decision of the State on amalgamation and merger contained in the O.M. dated 22.09.2016, there is no requirement for obtaining the views and response of the concerned schools prior to taking a final decision on amalgamation and merger. We cannot subscribe to the view that the appellant Association and/or its members should be allowed to have any say in the implementation of the policy which, ex facie, does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or illegality or unreasonableness. We cannot subscribe to the view that the appellant Association and/or its members should be allowed to have any say in the implementation of the policy which, ex facie, does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness or illegality or unreasonableness. A pre-amalgamation exercise as observed in paragraph 28 of the judgment under appeal would only go to frustrate and delay in achieving the objective of the Scheme. In this view of the matter, the observation made in paragraph 28 of the judgment under appeal to the effect that views/response of the concerned schools may be called for and considered before final decision is taken on amalgamation and merger, warrants interference and quashing, which is accordingly done. 13. For all the findings and reasons above, WA 155/2017 preferred by the All Assam Middle English Teacher’s Association stands dismissed and the WA 130/2017 filed by the State of Assam stands partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No cost.