NUZAWNI Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The petitioner Smt. Nuzawni D/o Shri Zakapa of Maubawk, Aizawl has approached this court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the purpose of enforcing her alleged fundamental rights and other legal rights.

(2.) It is submitted by the petitioner that she was temporarily appointed to act as officiating primary school teacher, against leave vacancy w.e.f. 12.6.1988 till 25.7.1988 and was asked to work as Lower Division Clerk (Typist), in short L.D.C.(Typist). Thereafter, on the expiry of the said period, she was given fresh officiating appointments for as many as 72 times one after another without any break till 23.3.2000. There was proposal by the authorities and recommendation for regular appointment on different dates and she was expecting the same but to her utter surprise, the Sub-Divisional Education Officer (West-I) verbally informed the writ petitioner not to attend office anymore w.e.f. March, 2001 without passing any formal removal order. That once she was permitted to participate in the D.P.C. in which she could not qualify, but she was allowed to continue in her service as L.D.C. Typist/Primary School Teacher spreading over a period of 13 years. That she continued to work even after the expiry of 1.10.1999 till the Director of School Education asked the Sub- Divisional Education Officer, Aizawl West-l, vide his Memo No. A.1 90 14/2/96-DTE(EDN) dated 23.3.2001 (Annexure-79) to dis-continue her service. The petitioner has become over aged for any fresh appointment and she is now a jobless person with three minor children to feed. The petitioner's removal from services, according to her, is inhuman, unjust and un-known to a welfare state like India.

(3.) The petition was contested by the respondents presenting their joint affidavit- in-opposition. They contended, inter-alia that there are duly constituted Departmental Promotion Committees for regular appointments. That the present petitioner was engaged for a particular/specified period against leave vacancies on temporary and officiating basis and she cannot claim for regular appointment on the basis of her continuous engagement. That she neither has the right to claim for regularisation nor holds any lien to any post. That she voluntarily rendered her service even after expiry of the period of engagement by 1.10.99 and has to be stopped from rendering her voluntary service w.e.f. 23.3.2001. As such payment of pay for the month of March, 2001 does not arise. During the period of her temporary engagement, the petitioner was at liberty to seek for other channels of employment. Moreover, a Government institution cannot act as a charity institution to meet the requireme;its of each and every needy person. Accordingly, the petition is devoid of any merit.