Decentralization is a complex phenomenon existing around the world and is found to decentralized educational system through a particular concept ``School-Based Management`` in many countries in the world including Nepal. The success of decentralized education or desired outcomes depend upon the nature of decentralized model and its implementation. The primary purpose of this study is to analyze the role of School Management Committee (SMC) to achieve quality of education after transferring the authority of school management to the community along with the perception of different stakeholders. Further it also examines the nature of decentralized educaion in Nepal as well as reasons to decentralize the schooling education that means reasons to hand over the authority of school management to the community as a secondary purpose of this study in order to make clear concepts about the role of SMC to achieve quality education. Furhermore, it also exmines the perception of different stakeholders regarding the implication of decentralized education (school governance) to the quality of education in brief. For this purpose, Four Community Managed Schools (2 from rural area and 2 from urban area) from two districts i.e. Rupandehi district (1 school from rural area and 1 school from urban area) and Nawalparasi district (1 school from rural area and 1 from urban area) were studied through comparative qualitative case study approach. Semi-structured interview, general observation and minutes of meeting of SMC were used to collect the primary data. There were 33 participants whose interviews were taken by semi-structured interview method. The study sample consisted of District Education Officers (DEO), school supervisors, resources person, head teachers, teachers, students, members of Parents-Teachers Association (PTA) and member of the SMC. Additionally, official policy documents and reports were used to collect the secondary data. Furthermore, the collected data was analyzed by inductive method. The findings of the study showed the different form of decentralization specially devolutionary at policy level but implementation of devolution and delegation in practice. The main reasons to decentralized school education or to transfer the authority of school management to the community people were influence of donor agencies in order to increase the sense of ownership to community people and making them accountable towards school in order to meet the goals of Education For All (EFA) compaign. In addition, the SMC at Community Managed Schools (CMS) were found to play the role of a manager and an administrator, a decision maker, a supervisor, a resources identifier, mobilizer and allocator, a coordinator/mediator, a social auditor as well as a role of leader and motivator in order to provide quality education by improving quality of service delivery in education. All schools were found autonomous after handing them over to the authoroty of school management to the community than centralized education system along with slight improvement in quality of education. The sense of ownership to community and their accountability towards school, participation of community people in decision making process of school management, learning achievement of students, performance of students, number of students and child-friendly classroom were found higher at CMS in rural area than that of urban area. However it was found improvement in all those aforementioned aspects in urban area as well as comparing to centralized education system. There was little problem in implementation of role of SMC as manager and administrator regarding the authority to hire and fire teachers because of external interfere such as unions of teachers at CMSs of both areas. There were little problems regarding the implementation of the medium of mother tongue instruction and designing local curriculum at primary level. The Government of Nepal used its own criteria to maintain quality of education based on the UNESCO framework undestanding quality of education. In short, the quality of education was improving at CMSs of both areas and there was no huge difference in quality of education between the CMSs of both areas.