MARA AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL REPRESENTED BY EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioners who are the Mara Autonomous District Council (MADC) represented by its Executive Secretary and the District Council Education Officer, School Education Department, MADC are aggrieved with the embargo placed upon them by the respondent authorities for having floated an advertisement on 24.01.2019 to invite eligible applicants for filling up 30 posts of Middle School teachers and 40 posts of Primary School teachers. According to the petitioners, the Executive Committee of the MADC has the power to appoint officers and staff and also to fix the salaries and allowances to be paid to such establishment without the consultation and prior approval of the State Government. The same is however subject to the condition that it does not result in financial implication in excess of the budgetary allocation and the grants-in-aid given to the District Council. The petitioners, therefore, floated the advertisement dated 24.01.2019 to meet the urgent requirement of School teachers at the level of Middle School and Primary School.

(3.) Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel submits that the vacancies that were advertised vide the Advertisement dated 24.01.2019 occurred due to the retirement of the incumbents or on account of the death of some of the employees. Considering the urgent requirement for filling up the said posts, the Executive Committee in its Meeting held on 08.01.2019 decided to fill up the vacancies for the smooth running of the schools concerned. Although there are more vacancies than what was advertised, the Executive Committee of MADC decided to fill up the posts as was advertised on 24.01.2019 as of now. She submits that filling up of the post will not result in financial implication which is in excess of the budgetary allocation and the grants-in-aid received by the District Council since as was earlier submitted, the posts to be filled up are vacancies on account of either retirement or death of the incumbents, who were holding the post. She further submits that the impugned notice issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, District Council and Minority Affairs Department on 01.02.2019 seeking an explanation from the petitioners is not tenable inasmuch as the respondent authorities have sought to rely upon the notification dated 16.08.2016 (Annexure-7) which provides that the approval of the Governor and his concurrence will be required for filling up of all categories of posts made by the Autonomous District Councils of Lai, Mara and Chakma. The said notification in fact runs contrary to Rule 26 of the Mara Autonomous District Council (Constitution, Conduct of Business, etc.) Rules, 2002 (Rules of 2002), which otherwise was framed in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-paragraph (7) of Paragraph 2 of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India read with Paragraph 20 BB of the Constitution. The Rules of 2002 was framed with the approval of the Governor of Mizoram. Since Rule 26 of the Rules of 2002 clearly empowers the Executive Committee to appoint officers and staff subject to the condition that such appointment does not result in financial implication in excess of the budgetary allocation and grants-in-aid, the respondent authorities have only committed an error in calling for an explanation from the petitioners. Nevertheless, she submits that the explanation was replied to by the petitioners on 05.02.2019.