RIMAWIKIMA, S/O HMINGLIANA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners before this Court were initially appointed as Primary Teachers under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) on contract basis on a fixed monthly remuneration between the years 2003 -2007. Thereafter, on the decisions of the Council of Ministers in its meeting held on 31.5.2008, 2.6.2008 and 27.6.2008 and as per Government approval dated 10.9.2008, the petitioners were engaged as Primary School Teachers on contract basis for a period of 1(one) year w.e.f. 1.6.2008 by separate engagement order dated 10.9.2008. Since their initial appointments under the State Government w.e.f. 1.6.2008, the petitioners are continuously serving in their respective posts on a fixed monthly remuneration which has been enhanced from time to time. As the petitioners have been working for more than 5 (five) years on contract basis as Primary School Teachers, the present writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents for regularization of their service under the Mizoram Regularisation of Contract Employees Scheme, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme of 2008).

(2.) HEARD Mr. N. Sailo, learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. Lalsawirema, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents.

(3.) MR . N. Sailo, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that after the engagement of the petitioners on contract basis as Primary School Teachers by the engagement orders dated 10.9.2008 w.e.f. 1.6.2008, they have been continuously serving without any service break. The State respondents in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India has also framed the Mizoram Education and Human Resources Department (Group 'C' Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2003 (hereinafter the Recruitment Rules of 2003). Again the State respondents has also formulated a scheme called the Mizoram Regularisation of Contract Employees Scheme, 2008 (herein after referred to as the Scheme of 2008) which was notified in the Gazette on 12.8.2008. He, therefore, submits that the petitioners are eligible to be regularized under the Rules of 2003 as well as the Scheme of 2008 inasmuch as they have been serving as Contract Primary School Teachers w.e.f. 1.6.2008. He also submits that similarly situated persons i.e. Contract Primary School Teachers had approached this Court by filing writ petition and on the basis of the judgment and order passed therein, such Primary School Teachers have been regularized. At the first instance, 44 Primary School Teachers who were on the same footing as that of the present petitioners had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 161/2002. By judgment and order dated 8.4.2004, WP(C) No. 161/2002 was disposed of with a direction for consideration of the case for absorption against present or future vacancies and till they were absorbed or adjusted in a phase manner according to their seniority, the State respondents were directed not to make any direct recruitment to the vacant posts without first considering the case of those petitioners as per seniority and any other criteria as may be laid down. Such directions of this Court was not complied with by the State respondents and therefore a Contempt Case (C) No. 4/2012 was filed by those petitioners. During the pendency of the said contempt case, the petitioners therein were regularized by office order dated 4.6.2012 and consequently, the contempt case was also closed by order dated 8.6.2012. Thereafter, another 108 teachers who were appointed as Primary School Teachers had also approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 114/2011 contending that they were similarly placed with the petitioners of WP(C) No. 161/2002 and therefore prays for similar benefits that was given to the petitioners in WP(C) No. 114/2011. The said WP(C) No.114/2011 was disposed of by judgment and order dated 18.1.2013 directing the State respondents to consider the case of the petitioners for regularization in terms of the Scheme of 2008. By the said judgment and order, it was further directed that the 108 posts held by the petitioners should be excluded from open advertisement and only the remaining 58 posts and such further posts as may be available should be filled up by way of open advertisement. There too, the State respondents did not comply with the judgment and order dated 18.1.2013 and therefore a Contempt Case (C) No. 10/2013 was filed and during pendency of the said contempt petition, petitioners in WP(C) No. 114/2011 were regularized by order dated 3.2.2014 and therefore the said contempt was also closed by an order dated 5.3.2014.