LALRINLIANA, ASSISTANT AUDITOR Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 5.7.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P. (C) No. 63 of 2011 quashing the panel list dated 20.6.2011 and directing the respondent authorities to prepare a fresh panel list of contractual employees who were serving as Assistant Auditors by placing the private respondent above the appellants and thereafter to consider their case for regularization in terms of the Regularization Scheme. The facts of the case giving rise to this appeal, shorn of unnecessary details, are that the appellants were appointed to the post of Assistant Auditors during 2007 and 2008 on contractual basis on the recommendation of DPC/Selection Committee after the posts were duly advertised in the leading local dailies whereas the private respondents No. 6 to 24 were appointed on contract basis on various dates between 2001 and 2006 in the Directorate of Accounts and Treasuries, Aizawl for a period of one year without adhering to the recognized recruitment process and when there was complete ban on any appointment. It may be noted that the request of the respondent No. 5 to the respondent No. 3 for regularizing the services of these respondents was turned down on 4.7.2008. It would appear that the Government of Mizoram had issued the notification dated 6.8.2008 drawing up a scheme known as "The Government of Mizoram Regularization of Contract Employees Scheme, 2008" for the purpose of regularizing contract employees to vacant posts. As some defects were found in this Scheme, the Government of Mizoram again drew up an amended scheme known by the name of "The Government of Mizoram Regularization of Contract Employees Scheme, 2008" ("the Scheme" for short). Clause 3(1) of the Scheme is relevant for our purpose, and the same reads as under:

(2.) From the Scheme extracted above, it becomes clear that in order to avail of regularization of contractual services under the Scheme, the following conditions shall have to be satisfied, namely, (i) the contractual appointments shall have to be engaged through a duly constituted DPC; (ii) such contractual engagement must have been made with the prior approval of the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms as well as the Finance Department. Under the same Scheme, regularization of contractual appointees is also admissible if their engagements had been made through a duly constituted DPC with the prior approval of the Finance Department and their services are still retained by executing a Deed of Contractual Agreement. There can be no dispute that the Appellants had been appointed as contractual appointees through DPC and with the prior approval of both the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms and Department of Finance. There is also not dispute that none of the private respondents had been appointed on contract basis through DPC but with the concurrence only of the Department of Finance. This is confirmed by the letter dated 4.12.2008 of the respondent No. 3 addressed to the respondent No. 5 while rejecting the request for regularizing the services of the private respondents.

(3.) It may be noted that such request made thereafter also met the same fate. Subsequently, a special DPC was convened for the purpose of regularizing the services of those contractual appointees who did not fulfil the requirements of the Scheme. On the recommendation of the special DPC held on 10.6.2009, the respondent No. 4 (The Chief Controller of Accounts, Accounts & Treasuries, Govt. of Mizoram) submitted a proposal to the respondent No. 3 (Secretary, Finance) for approving the filling up of 41 vacant posts of Assistant Auditors to accommodate the existing contractual employees by indicating therein that sufficient fund was available for that purpose. The respondent No. 2 by his letter dated 26.8.2009 informed the respondent No. 4 that contract employees engaged without routing through DPC should be examined and screened by the duly authorized DPC to assess their suitability for engagement on contract basis as per the extant recruitment rule so to enable them to come within the purview of the Scheme and that those who did not qualify should not longer be engaged or continued in the post.