SMTI LALTANPUII Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner by the present writ petition has challenged the order of termination dated 22.5.2000 passed by the Directorate of Sericulture Department, Govt of Mizoram, Aizawl terminating the services of the petitioner wef 29.2.2000 and also praying for reinstatement her in service. The further prayer of the writ petitioner in the writ petition is for regularisation of her service as Lower Division Clerk (LDC).

(2.) I have heard Mr. George Raju learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Sailo learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos 1 and 2. None appears for the respondent No.3, may be because no relief is sought for against the said respondent No.3.

(3.) The facts leading to filing of the present writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on ad-hoc basis by an order passed on 31.1.97 against the vacancy caused due to promotion of Pi Lalthomawii, to the post of Upper Division Clerk (UDC). The petitioner was thereafter, transferred from one place to another. On 8.2.99, the Director of Sericulture notified the said vacancy of LDC created due to the promotion of the said Pi Lalthomawii to the Employment Exchange for sponsoring the name of the suitable candidates. Since, the petitioner was on service on ad-hoc basis, the Director has also informed her vide communication dated 10.2.99 to get her name sponsored through Employment Exchange for consideration of her case for regular appointment, against the post held by her. Thereafter, the Director issued impugned order of termination dated 25.2.2000 terminating the services of the petitioner wef 29.2.2000 against which an appeal was filed by the petitioner before Secretary and the Commissioner, Sericulture Department. Since the said appeal was not disposed of, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being WP (C) No. 62 of 2000 challenging the order of termination dated 25.2.2000 and this Court vide order dated 4.9.2000 has directed the Secretary to consider and dispose of the said appeal filed by the petitioner and to pass a speaking and reasoned order, in case, the authority decides not to reinstate the petitioner. The Secretary, Sericulture thereafter, pursuant to the said order passed by this Court, vide order dated 4.9.2000 disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioner by directing the Director to take steps for filling up of the said post in terms of the relevant rules and regulation of appointment after notifying through Employment Exchange, as there was a direction issued by this Court in Contempt Case No. 10 of 1999 arising out of Civil Rule No. 17 of 1997 filed by the proforma respondent No.3 therein to that effect. The Secretary by the said order has also observed that in making regular selection and appointment, the case of the writ petitioner shall also be considered along with the other eligible persons. Pursuant to the said decision of the Secretary, the Selection Committee selected the present proforma respondent No.3 for appointment to the post of LDC-cum-typist in its meeting dated 14.8.01 and accordingly, the Director Sericulture- vide order dated 22.5.02 appointed the proforma respondent No.3 as LDC cum-typist against the post fell vacant due to the promotion of the said Pi. Lalthomawii, against which post, the petitioner was appointed on ad-hoc basis.