NEELAM SARANG Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed by the Secretary to the Governor of Mizoram as Officer-on Special Duty (Law) in the Governor's Secretariat on ad hoc basis by a notification dated 10th August, 1990 and was thereafter allotted Quarter No. RBIV 3 within the Raj Bhawan Complex. By an advertisement dated 16.10.90 applications were invited for the post of Officer-on-Special Duty and the petitioner amongst others submitted applications for the said post. By an order dated 12.2.91 of the Secretary to the Governor the services of the petitioner were regularised as Officeer-on-Special Duty with effect from 11.2.91. An order was issued on 28.5.2001 by the Secretary to the Governor that consequent upon abolition of the temporary post of Officer-on-Special Duty (OSD) in the Governor's Secretariat, the services of the petitioner who has been temporarily holding the post of Officer-On-Special Duty (OSD) was terminated and she was relieved of her duties with immediate effect. Along with the said order dated 28.5.2001, a Banker Cheque of Rs.62,529/- only drawn in favour of the petitioner, being equivalent three months' salary in lieu of termination notice, was enclosed. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of thE Constitution with a prayer to quash the order of abolition of the post of Officer-On-Special Duty and the consequent order dated 28.5.2001 terminating her service.

(2.) On 6.6.2001, the Court issued rule and passed an interim order staying the operation of the impugned order dated 28.5.2001 and further directed that the petitioner will not be evicted from the residential quarter that she has been occupying until further orders. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 then filed Misc. Case No. 888/2001 stating therein that by the order dated 28.5.2001 the services of the petitioner were terminated with immediate effect and she was handed over a Cheque of Rs.62,529/- on the same day and that the said order had already been given effect to and it will not be possible to reinstate her in the post pursuant to the interim order passed by the Court. In the said application the respondents applied for modification of the said interim order dated 6.6.2001. On 1.8.2001 the said Misc. Case was disposed of with a direction that the petitioner shall be allowed to stay in the said quarter in the premises of Raj Bhawan and the petitioner may encash the Cheque for Rs.62,529/-, but the encashment shall be without prejudice to the right of the petitioner and that the main writ petition be listed for hearing.

(3.) At the hearing of the main writ petition, Mr D.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, relying on the averments in the writ petition submitted that on 24.5.2001 the petitioner was asked by Capt Anupam Aide-de-Camp (Army) to vacate her Quarter within 2 days so that he may occupy the same as per the Governor's order and the petitioner met the Governor of Mizoram, but she was told by the Governor that the order to vacate the Quarter could not be reversed and thereafter on 28.5.2001 the services of the petitioner were terminated with immediate effect on the ground that the temporary post of Officer-On-Special Duty held by the petitioner was abolished. Mr Mishra submitted that the post of Officer-on-Special Duty was not a temporary post but a permanent post and that rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India for recruitment to the said post had been framed by notification dated 27.6.90. Mr Mishra argued that it will be apparent from the sequence of events leading to the termination of the services of the petitioner that the decision to abolish the post of Officer-on-Special Duty was taken only as a cloak or pretence to remove the petitioner from service and not in good faith. He submitted that the post of Officer-on-Special Duty had been created way back in 1990 and was permanent in nature. He argued that there has been no assessment by experts whether the petitioner was required and the decision to abolish the post suddenly had been taken to get rid of the services of the petitioner because the petitioner did not vacate the Quarter in Raj Bhawan. The entire action of the respondents, according to Mr Mishra, was vindicative and arbitrary and the impugned orders abolishing the post of Officer-On-Special Duty and terminating the services of the petitioner who was holding the said post are liable to be quashed by the Court. Mr Mishra cited the decisions of the Supreme Court in M. Ramanatha Pillai-Vs-State of Kerala (1973) 2 SCC 650, State of Haryana-Vs-Shri Des Raj Sangar (1976) 2 SCC 844 and K. Rajendran-Vs-State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1982 SC 1107 in support of his submission that an order abolishing a post and the consequent order terminating the services of the person holding the post can be interfered by the Court if the order abolishing the post has been made arbitrarily, not in good faith, or as a cloak to remove the person holding the post.