B ZAKILI Vs. LAI AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the writ petitioner Smt. B. Zakili has challenged the office order No. 221/2002 dated 16. 8. 2002, by which appointment of the petitioner along with other Hindi Teachers working in different Middle Schools under Lai Autonomous District Council (in short LADC) were terminated temporarily and the office orders No. 12 - 18 of 2003 circulated under Memo No. M. /6/02-LDC/edn dated 21. 1. 03 by which the respondents No. 5 -10 were illegally appointed as Hindi Teachers in different Middle Schools under the Lai Autonomous District Council.

(2.) THE case of the writ petitioner in a short campus can be described as under: in order to propagate Hindi in Non-Hindi Speaking States/union Territories, the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Secondary and Higher Education (Language Division) under the provisions contained in Article 351 of the Constitution of India, prepared a Scheme known as 'the Scheme of financial Assistance for Appointment and Training of Hindi Teachers in Non-Hindi Speaking States/uts'. In pursuance of the said Scheme, the Government of India, sanctioned a number of posts for which financial assistance was afforded to the State of Mizoram, which includes different posts for the 3 Autonomous District Councils. Under the Scheme, the Govt. of Mizoram allotted 10 (ten) posts of Middle School Hindi Teachers for LADC. Respondents No. 1 and 2 conducted a written test and personal interview for appointment of teachers to the said posts. The writ petitioner appeared in the written test and personal interview and was selected alongwith 9 others. Vide office order No. 127/2000 dated 7. 7. 2000, the writ petitioner alongwith 9 others were appointed wherein the places of posting against the name of the writ petitioner and others has been indicated and the name of the writ petitioner stands at Sl. No. 3 of the appointment letter. Pursuant to the appointment letter, writ petitioner joined in Mampui Middle School and was discharging her duties as such. However, in the year 2002, on account of non-receipt of financial assistance from the Central Government, the services of 10 (ten) Hindi Teachers including the writ petitioner working in different Middle Schools were temporarily terminated vide office order No. 221/2002 dated 16. 8. 2002 (Annexure-6 ).

(3.) HAVING received the required financial assistance from the Central Government, 4 Hindi Teachers whose services were terminated by the order above were taken back and the remaining 6 including the petitioner were left out and 6 other persons were appointed in the vacant posts vide office order No. 12-18 issued under Memo No. M. 11026/6/2002-LDC/edn dated 21. 1. 2003 (Annexure-7 to 12 respectively ). It is contended and alleged that those 6 persons were appointed without adopting the selection procedure.