WP(C)/320/2024 of JOMIRUL ISLAM Vs THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND 6 ORS, on 23 April 2026

1. State of Meghalaya represented by The Secretary Education Department Govt. of Meghalaya, Shillong

2. The Director of School Education and Literacy, New Colony, Laitumkhrah, Shillong, Meghalaya-793003.

3. District School Education Officer, West Garo Hills, Tura-794105

4. Shri Akkas Ali, President, Managing Committee, Rajabala Higher Secondary School, Rajabala, Meghalaya

… Respondent(s)

6. Shri Moslem Hoque, S/o Abdul Jobber Sheikh, R/o N. No. 26, Haripur Vill: Haripur, West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya

7. Shri Rafiat Zaman, S/o Aftar Ali, R/o H. No. 22, Namabilla Vill: Namabilla, West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya

…Pro. Respondent(s)

__________________________________________________________

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice H. S. Thangkhiew, Judge Appearance: For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Thapa, Adv. with

Mr. B. Snaitang, Adv.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. N.D. Chullai, AAG with

Ms. R. Colney, GA (For R 1-3)

Mr. M.L. Nongpiur, Adv. (For R 4&5)

Ms. M. Rahman, Adv. (For R 6&7)

i) Whether approved for reporting in

Yes/No

Law journals etc:

ii) Whether approved for publication

Yes/No

in press: JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

1. The writ petitioner who stated to be a guardian of a child studying in Rajabala Higher Secondary School is before this Court with a prayer that an independent enquiry be caused into the allegations raised in various complaints by guardians and public at large, with regard to the irregularities and illegalities present in the said School.

2. Mr. S. Thapa, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the writ petitioner was compelled to approach this Court, as there were concerns over the activities in the school, and in this regard, public complaints by NGOs and guardians had also been filed before the respondent No. 2, raising this alarm. It is further submitted that even with regard to the teachers appointments, there were severe irregularities and though the said complaints had been filed, the same did not receive any consideration.

3. In the course of the proceedings he submits, the State respondents had instituted an enquiry, which had culminated in a Report dated 21.02.2025, wherein certain recommendations were made for further action to be taken, inasmuch as, severe irregularities were detected. Thereafter, he submits the respondents came up with a second enquiry, wherein 3(three) specific charges i.e. i) Examination of financial records,

ii) Review of School Managing Committee proceedings and iii) Legality of the agreement in 2022, have been re-appraised and re-enquired into, and the private respondents against whom there were allegations were given a clean chit. The learned counsel submits that the conduct of the respondents in instituting a second enquiry without the leave of this Court is illegal and defeats the very purpose for which the writ petition was instituted. He therefore, prays for appropriate directions that action be taken to ensure faithful compliance of the first enquiry, and to hold the concerned persons accountable.

4. Mr. N.D. Chullai, learned AAG assisted by Ms. R. Colney, learned GA for the respondents Nos. 1, 2 & 3, in reply has submitted that the second enquiry to which the petitioner has voiced his grievances, in fact stems from the first enquiry itself. In this regard, the learned AAG has referred to the office order dated 28.07.2025, wherein the first enquiry had taken cognizance of the need for a detailed enquiry on the 3(three) aspects, which had then been acted upon by the institution of the second enquiry. He thus submits that the findings of the first enquiry report have been fully complied with, and as the second enquiry report has disclosed that there were no financial irregularities or any other misdemeanor, perhaps the matter can be closed by directing the respondents to constitute a fresh School Managing Committee.

5. Mr. M.L. Nongpiur, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 4 & 5, apart from adopting the submissions of the learned AAG has also submitted submits that a perusal of the first enquiry report itself would reflect that the findings are not only against the School Managing Committee but also against the complainant, who is the writ petitioner herein.

6. Ms. M. Rahman, learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 6 & 7, has also endorsed the submissions made by the learned AAG.

7. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also examined the available materials on record. Firstly, it is noted that the prayer of the writ petitioner is confined only to the aspect of seeking directions for institution of an enquiry into the affairs of the Rajabala Higher Secondary School. The same it is seen, has been acted upon by the State respondents, which has resulted in the enquiry report dated 21.02.2025. This Court has perused the findings recorded therein and notes the respondents by the second enquiry has gone into points (d) and (f), i.e. the aspect concerning the accounts and affairs of the Managing Committee as found necessary to be gone into by a further enquiry by the Report dated 21.02.2025, whereafter it was found that there were no irregularities.

8. In the backdrop of these facts and circumstances, though the petitioner may still nurse some grievances in the manner the matter had proceeded, the prayer made in the writ petition, however has been answered.

9. Accordingly, this Court without dwelling any further into the matter, the same is closed and disposed. JUDGE Meghalaya 23.04.2026 “V. Lyndem-PS”

Digitally signed by VALENTINO LYNDEM Date: 2026.04.24 18:13:27 IST Signature Not Verified