LAL ROSANGI Vs. P K HANDIQUE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned counsel assisted by Mr. A.R. Malhotra for the petitioner as well as Mr. T. Vaiphei, learned Assistant Advocate General, Mizoram appearing for the respondent. I have also considered the records.

(2.) This Court vide an Order dated 8.5.98 passed in C.R. No. 17/97 directed that the case of the petitioner Ms Lalrosangi, who has been serving in the Sericulture Department of Mizoram Government for about 15(fifteen years) as Muster Roll employee, shall be considered for regular appointment in a post of L.D.C. (Lower Division Clerk) in the said Department in the next available vacancy. It was clarified in the said Order that the appointment to the said post should be as per relevant law except that age shall be no bar and due weightage shall be given for her past service.

(3.) In the contempt petition it is alleged that in utter dis-regard to the aforesaid order, respondent instead of considering the petitioner's case for regular appointment in the said post of L.D.C., initiated a proposal (vide Annexure-II dated 18.5.98) for convening D.P.C. for regularisation of Ms Laltanpuii in the post of L.D.C. to which she was appointed on adhoc basis. This post of L.D.C. till filled-up by regular appointment remains vacant. Adhoc appointment to this post is only a stop gap arrangement and not regular filling up of the said vacancy. Since this vacancy was there on 8.5.98(date of this Court's Order), and is still there even after 8.5.98, it is the next available vacancy referred to in this court's Order dated 8.5.98 . Any attempt to fill up this vacancy by regular appointment without considering the case of the petitioner amount to an attempt to disobey this Court's Order dated 8.5.98.