C CHHUNDENGA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Mr. G. Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T Vaiphei, learned Assistant Advocate General for the State respondents. None appears for the private respondents. I have also considered the records of the case including the affidavit-in- opposition filed on behalf of the State respondents and the annexures thereto.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Supervisor (Mukhyasevika on adhoc basis by the respondent No. 3 Director, Social Welfare Department, Govt. of Mizoram vide order dated 31.8.83 (Annexure-1). Rejoined as such on 1.9.83. Subsequently, the post of Supervisor were advertised. The petitioner also appeared before the Selection Committee and was selected for regularisation of appointment. An order dated 8.12.83 (Annexure-II) was issued appointing him as such with effect from 9.12.83. By another order dated 9.6.93 (Annexure-VI) the petitioner was allowed to count his aforesaid period as Supervisor from 1.9.83 for future increments but not for his seniority. However, a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC in short) held on 10.3.93 recommended regularisation of his adhoc appointment period with effect from 1.9.83 as Circle Officer (Supervisor re-designated as Circle Officer), and further recommended that he should be placed are SI. No.8 in the seniority list. However, the respondent No. 3 by his letter dated 18.6.93 (Annexure-VII) addressed to respondent No. 2 the Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Social Welfare Department sought review of such recommendation of the DPC stating, inter alia, that in the selection for regular appointment to the post of Supervisor, the petitioner was given 23rd position in the merit list of 28 selected candidates which forms the basis for seniority as per rules, and that the adhoc appointee cannot have any claim to count the period of adhoc appointment for seniority and the DPC could not have regulairsed the petitioner's adhoc appointment period with effect from 1.9.83 i.e. the date of his joining as adhoc appointee. The DPC held on 20.8.93 found that there was one days break as his adhoc appointment period was counted from 1.9.83 to 7.12.83 and he was appointed on regular basis with effect from 9.12,83, reviewed the earlier recommendation and recommended that he should be placed at SI. No. 24 in the seniority list vide minutes of the DPC meeting (Annexure-VET).

(3.) The petitioner then filed C.R. No. 22/ 96 for quashing the minutes of the DPC as aforesaid, and this Court disposed of the same by an order dated (Annexure-XII) observing therein that as no action was taken by the Government on such recommendation as yet, the petitioner may approach this court if and when the Government pass any order against his interest. Thereafter, the Government issued the following order dated 19.1.98 (Annexure- XIII) impugned in this writ petition :-