An SMDC President Must Reside in the District Where the School Is Situated.

The petitioner, a retired Headmaster of F.A. Memorial High School in Dhubri District, applied to be President of the School Management Development Committee (SMDC).

The Headmaster first forwarded a panel on 5 October 2021 and later submitted another panel, including respondent No. 6, on 11 October 2021, after the Director extended the deadline for submitting four names.

Respondent No. 6, a resident of Kokrajhar District whose village was geographically close to the school, was appointed President by order dated 29 March 2022.

The petitioner challenged the recommendation and appointment, contending that respondent No. 6 was not a local resident as required by the Government notification dated 24 June 2016.

1. Whether a person residing in a different district from the school may qualify as a “local” citizen for appointment as SMDC President under the notification dated 24 June 2016

2. Whether respondent No. 6’s recommendation and appointment as President of the SMDC were contrary to that notification

3. Whether the petitioner could be appointed in place of respondent No. 6, given that he had crossed the prescribed age limit

The Government of Assam notification dated 24 June 2016 prescribes that the President and Vice-President of an SMDC must be no more than 65 years of age, possess at least a graduation qualification, and meet the applicable reputation and political-career criteria.

It provides for the President to be a “local educated, reputed citizen having no political career” and sets out a selection process involving consultation with the Headmaster and local people, followed by recommendations and Government approval.

The Court construed “local” in this context by reference to the habitation and administrative jurisdiction of the school, including the district in which it is situated.

No judicial precedents were cited.

The Court noted that the school was situated in Dhubri District, while respondent No. 6’s village was in Kokrajhar District.

It held that geographical proximity, adjacency, and the fact that students came from nearby villages across district boundaries could not displace the relevant administrative jurisdictions.

The authorities’ own position—that “local” was linked to the habitation, district, and block of the school—supported construing the requirement to demand a local connection with, and residence in, the district where the school was situated.

Respondent No. 6 therefore did not meet the local-residence requirement.

Although the petitioner met the locality and educational criteria, he had by then exceeded the maximum age of 65 and was ineligible for appointment.

It set aside the recommendation dated 11 October 2021 and appointment dated 29 March 2022.

Because the petitioner had crossed 65 years of age, the Court directed the authorities to undertake a fresh appointment process in accordance with the notification and the Court’s observations.

The writ petition was disposed of on those terms.