LALMUANPUIA (DR.) Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Lalremsanga Nghaka, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 to 10. None appears for the respondent No. 4 i.e. the Mizoram Public Service Commission (MPSC).

(2.) Brief facts of the case is that the petitioners were directly appointed to the Junior Grade of the Mizoram Finance and Accounts Service under the Finance Department on 8/9/2011 except for the petitioner No. 5, who was appointed on 2/5/2012. The private respondents were all appointed by promotion to the same Grade on 9/11/2010 after being selected through Limited Departmental Examination (LDE).

(3.) As per Rule 23 (2) of the Mizoram Finance and Accounts Service Rules, 2008 (Rules of 2008) which governs the service condition of all the petitioners and the private respondents, a member of the service in the Junior Grade is eligible for promotion to the Senior Grade after rendering regular service in the Junior Grade for a minimum period of 5 years subject to Rule 18. Rule 18 prescribes for departmental examination which is required to be cleared by all probationers. According to the petitioners, as they were recruited and appointed to the Junior Grade of the service alongwith the private respondents in the same vacancy year of 2009-2010, they ought to have been considered for promotion to the Senior Grade of the service. They are also one of the senior-most incumbents in the Junior Grade of the service alongwith the private respondents in the final seniority list notified on 14/7/2016.While it took about two months for conducting the LDE for promotion to the Junior Grade of the service, it took about 10 months to finalize the direct recruitment process to the said grade and for this reason, the petitioners claim that they should have been considered for promotion to the Senior Grade by invoking the relaxation clause provided by Rule 27 of the Rules of 2008. The same having not been done, they are before this Court challenging the Agenda Note and the attached documents sent to the MPSC and the rejection of their Representation and the promotion order of the private respondents.