Lalruatkima Ralte and ors vs State of Mizoram and ors

S. SERTO

1.Heard Ms. Dinari T.Azu, learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. Samuel, learned Government Advocate appearing for all the State

respondents.

This is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of appropriate writ or order or direction directing the

respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners in the post of Lecturer in Deficit Government Higher Secondary Schools.

The case of the petitioners in brief is that they were appointed by the respective Managing Committees of the Schools and their appointments were

duly approved by the District Education Officer of their concerned districts and thereafter, they have been paid by the Government of Mizoram as

contract employees of the Government, and each of them have completed 5 years of service. Therefore, they are entitled to be regularized under the

scheme provided under Notification No. A.11019/5/2008- P&AR (ARW)/51, dated 10.10.2008. Further, it is also submitted that similarly situated

persons had approached this Court by filing at least three writ petitions viz; (i) W.P.(C) No. 100 of 2016, (ii) W.P.(C) No. 121 of 2013 and (iii) W.P.

(C) No. 115 of 2013, and this Court in all the three writ petitions had allowed the prayers of the petitioners and directed the State respondents to

consider the case of the writ petitioners therein for regularization of their services under the scheme mentioned above. And, the respondents in

pursuant to the directions given in the three writ petitions had issued orders regularizing the services of those writ petitioners. Therefore, this Court

may also pass a similar direction directing the respondents to consider regularization of their services.

Ms. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the relevant paragraphs of the three writ petitions, wherein the nature of

appointments of the petitioners therein are stated, and also referred to the relevant annexures of the present writ petition, wherein the nature of

appointments of the petitioners are shown. It appears from the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners and the contents of the

relevant annexures of the writ petition referred to by the learned counsel of the writ petitioners that the nature of appointments or the way how the

petitioners in this writ petition were appointed and the nature of appointments of the petitioners in those three writ petitions are same.

Mr. Samuel, learned Government Advocate submits that for the appointments of the petitioners in the three writ petitions prior approval of the

Government and the Finance Department was obtained whereas in the case of the petitioners in this writ petition there is nothing to show that such

approval of the Government and Finance Department were obtain for their appointments and also for their extension, therefore, the two cases are

clearly distinguishable.

The learned Government Advocate also submits that to be eligible under the scheme by which the petitioners claim is based, one must have been

appointed through the recommendation of a duly constituted DPC and the appointment should have been preceeded by approval of the Government

and the Finance Department. The learned counsel referred to the Rule-3(1) and 6 of the notification in support of his submission. The contents of the

Rule-3(1) and 6 are reproduced here below;

“3. Application:

1) This scheme shall apply to the Contractual Employees under various Departments of the Government of Mizoram whose engagements have been

made through the duly authorized Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) with the prior approval of DP & AR and the Finance Department.

Besides these, contractual employees whose engagements had been made through the duly authorized Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC)

with the prior concurrence of Finance

Department alone before 6th December, 2005 (i.e. before issue of DP & AR’s O.M. No. A. 11016/1/88-P&AR (ARW)/45 dt. 6.12.2005) and

whose services are still retained by executing Deed of Contractual Agreement shall also be eligible for regularization under this Scheme. This shall not

apply to the contractual employees under CSS.

Regularisation not as matter of right ; Notwithstanding anything contained in this scheme, such regularisation shall not be claimed by any Contract

Employee as a matter of right.â€​

Ms. Dinari T.Azyu, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the selections and the appointments of the petitioners in this writ petition

were made by the Managing Committees of their respective Schools, they were approved by competent authorities of the Department as in the case

of the petitioners in the three writ petitions. Therefore, it cannot be said that their appointments did not have approval of the Government. The learned

counsel also submits that the fact that they were allowed to continue in service with their monthly salary paid by the Government shows that their

appointments had concurrence of the Finance Department.

Considering the fact that the appointments of the petitioners in this writ petition were approved by the competent authority and they have been

continually paid by the Government shows that their appointments have been approved and the Finance Department had given its concurrence. Had it

been otherwise, the petitioners would not have recieve their salaries. Therefore, the respondents cannot say that the appointments of the petitioners

were without the approval of the concerned Government and their salaries were paid without concurrence of the Finance Department.

The learned counsel for the petitioners also appointed out a minute of the meeting held in connection with the service benefits of the Lecturers in

Deficit Mission Schools in Mizoram in the Office Chamber of Secretary, School Education Department on 26.05.2014, wherein the members present

were high officials of the department. The translation version of the Minutes No. 5 of the Meeting reads as follows;-

“There are certain numbers of Lecturer/Teacher etc engaged on contract basis under the Deficit Mission School. Steps should be taken to

regularize those persons like those persons working under Deficit regular postâ€​.

It appears from the minute of the meeting that the intention of the Government has been to treat the Lecturers and Teachers engaged on contract

basis under Deficit Mission Schools in the same manner as the other contract employee of the Government.

After having gone through the judgments placed before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the view that the petitioners in those

three writ petition and the petitioners in this writ petition are similarly situated. Therefore, I find no reason why they should not be given the same

treatment.

In view of the above discussions, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization as has been done in the case of

the writ petitioners in those three writ petitions. The whole process should be completed at the earliest but not later than a period of 4(four) months

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.