K LALMALSAWMA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this writ petition the impugned letters No. C. 14011/43/2007-EDN dated 12.6.2008 and No. C. 18011/135/2007-DTE (EDN) dated 3.7.2008 along with advice given by the respondent No. 4 vide I. D. No. GSW.8/2007/287 dated 28.3.2007 are sought to be set aside and quashed together with a direction to the respondent authorities to treat the period of termination as on duty for all purposes with all the consequential benefits such as, seniority, back wages, increment of pay etc.

(2.) The petitioner states that he, having been found qualified to be appointed as a teacher as per recruitment rules in the Pukzing Deficit Middle School was appointed by the Selection Committee vide Office Order No. A.12017/2/96-87 SDEO(W)/9778-80 dated 14.11.1991 (Annexure-2) issued by the Chairman, Selection Committee and Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Aizawl West, Aizawl.

(3.) Petitioner's such appointment was temporarily approved by the Office Order under Memo No. G.20011/1/91-SDEO(W)/6241-47 dated 28.11.91 (Annexure-3). Thereafter, the petitioner was selected to undergo training for Middle School Teachers in the year 1993 and he successfully completed the course in the same year and was awarded a Diploma in Teacher Education. In the meanwhile, the petitioner wanted to sit in B. A. (Hons.) examination and he was allowed to sit in such examination by the Headmaster of the Middle School and granted leave vide Order dated 18.1.1994 (Annexure-5 A). While the petitioner was in Aizawl for the purpose of the said examination, he was verbally informed in the month of April, 1994 by the office that he had been terminated from service for his absence. In fact, the petitioner was not served a termination order in writing by the respondents even though, he was regularly appointed to the post of teacher. For the termination of his service by the respondents in the manner above, the petitioner filed a representation to the respondent No. 3 praying for his reinstatement in the service contending inter alia that his termination was illegal since he was granted leave by the Headmaster to sit in the examination. Having found no positive response from the respondent in respect of his representation so made, he was constrained to make several representations to the respondents including the Minister in-Charge Education.