LALHMINGTHANGI SAILO Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Ricky Gurung, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned G. A. for the State respondents.

(2.) THIS application has been filed praying for regularization of service of the petitioner with retrospective effect with all consequential benefits such as seniority, promotion, gratuity and back wages from 8. 5. 1986 i. e. the date on which the petitioner's colleagues were given fresh appointment on regular basis. The petitioner claims that she was appointed as a substitute Hindi Teacher on 31. 1. 1981 for a period of 45 days w. e. f. 3. 2. 1981 to 20. 3. 1981 against leave vacancy in Republic Middle School, Aizawl. Thereafter, she was appointed against various leave vacancies from time to time and also against vacancy caused due to training of some teachers and she continued to serve as Hindi Teacher till 1986 and thereafter, she was not allowed to continue in service. At that stage, the petitioner felt aggrieved as she was terminated from service without any written order and submitted a representation on 2. 4. 1988 before the Hon'ble Minister Education followed by several representations dated 25. 5. 1996 before the Hon'ble Agriculture Minister, 8. 11. 1996 before the Hon'ble Minister, Education, 14. 10. 2004 before the Hon'ble Chief Minister and 1. 2. 2005 before the Hon'ble Education Minister. Ultimately by a letter dated 10. 2. 2005 the Joint Director of School Education asked the petitioner to furnish necessary documents. The documents having been submitted and the respondent No. 3 submitted a proposal on 14. 4. 2005 to the respondent No. 1. On receipt of the proposal, the Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Education and Human Resources Development, School Education vide his letter dated 27. 4. 2005 asked the petitioner to come to his chamber for discussion about the matter. After the discussion, the respondent No. 3 sent a letter dated 9. 1. 2006 to the respondent No. 1 furnishing the vacancy position and according to the aforesaid letter, there were as many as 44 vacant posts of Middle School Hindi Teachers. But in the meantime, the petitioner has crossed the age bar. However, the petitioner claims that the age-bar was condoned by the Government and after condoning the age-bar, a fresh appointment was issued on 10. 5. 2006 to the petitioner as Middle School Hindi Teacher and she was posted at Tanhril Government Middle School-1 and she has been working there since 10. 5. 2006 till this date.

(3.) MRS . Dinari T. Azyu, learned G. A. , on the other hand, submits that the petitioner's name found place at Sl. No. 16 in the selection list of 1981 and as such, she was given chance to serve against the leave and training vacancies from time to time. The aforesaid selection list of 1981 stood cancelled due to eflux of time and a new selection process was initiated in 1986. In the said 1986 recruitment, the petitioner did not participate and as such, her name did not appear in the select list. The petitioner, according to Mrs. Dinari, learned G. A. , cannot claim appointment or regularization of her service on the basis of selection list of 1981, the life of which has already expired. Moreover, it is submitted by Mrs. Dinari that the petitioner was allowed to serve during 1981 - 86 against the leave and training vacancies which are mentioned in the appointment letters themselves and as such, it is an admitted position that the petitioner was never appointed as a temporary or regular Hindi Teacher at any point of time. This stand has been taken in Para 12 of the counter affidavit filed by the State respondents which is quoted below:-