Back
2022 Supreme(Gau) 393
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH) AIZAWL BENCH : AIZAWL
NELSON SAILO, J.
Sh. Lalhnehliana Sailo & 24 Others – Appellant
Versus
The State of Mizoram & 13 Others – Respondents
WP(C) No. 123 of 2021
Decided on : 17-03-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mrs. Dinari. T. Azyu, Mr. K. Roland, Mr. Victor L. Ralte, Ms. Caroline K. Lungawipuii, Ms. Lalkrosschhuangi Ms. Lalhriatpuii Sailo.
For the Respondent: Ms. Zairemsangpuii, Ms. Mary Lalruatkimi Khiangte, adv
Point of Law : Petitioners cannot be treated differently or else, the same would amount to the infringement on their Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 14, 16, 226 – Equality before Law – Power of High court to issue writs - Petitioners were appointed either as Assistant Engineer, Assistant Project Officer(M), Accounts Officer, UDC, LDC, Driver or 4th Grade on contract basis, on being recommended by the duly constituted Departmental Screening Committee/Selection Committee - Petitioners cannot be treated differently or else, same would amount to the infringement on their Fundamental Rights guaranteed under Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. (Para 10)
Findings of the Court :
Court find petitioners to have a legitimate grievance and moreover, Court find their case to be covered by the earlier decisions of this Court as already referred to herein before. Accordingly, the State respondents are directed to take necessary steps to absorb the petitioners into the line department in terms of the Guidelines of the DRDA Administration within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Result : Writ petition disposed of
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mrs. Dinari T Azyu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 13. Also heard Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC appearing for respondent No. 14.
[2.] By filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners who are 25 in numbers have sought for a direction to the respondents to absorb them in their service in the line departments in terms of paragraph no. 4.2 of the Guidelines on DRDA Administration.
[3.] Brief facts of the case is that the petitioners were appointed either as Assistant Engineer, Assistant Project Officer(M), Accounts Officer, UDC, LDC, Driver or 4th Grade between 30.11.2009 to 03.02.2017 on contract basis, on being recommended by the duly constituted Departmental Screening Committee/Selection Committee. It is the case of the petitioners that the Ministry of Rural Development, Govt. of India formulated guidelines on DRDA Administration starting from the year 1999 and thereafter, in the years 2002, 2008 and the modified provisions in the year 2018. As per paragraph no. 4.2 of the said Guidelines, the State Rural Development Department is required to draw up a 3 to 5 Year Plan for absorption of the staff into the line departments. Besides, the modifications in respect of other paragraphs of the Guidelines, the petitioners contend that paragraphs 4.2 & 4.3 has not been modified and they remain unchanged. Therefore, the State respondents are required to draw up the 3 to 5 Year Plan for their absorption. Aggrieved with the rejection of their representation submitted in this regard vide Communication dated 15.04.2021, the petitioners are before this Court.
[4.] Mrs. Dinari T Azyu, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the instant writ petition in fact is a covered case, inasmuch as, similarly situated persons have been given the benefit of absorption in service in the line departments. In this connection, she refers to the Judgment & Order dated 22.07.2008 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in WP(C) No. 72/2006 Laldinpuii & 49 Ors. vs. State of Mizoram & 9 Ors. and also, Judgment & Order dated 22.11.2017 passed in WP(C) No. 175/2016 P.C Lallawmkima & 91 Ors. vs. State of Mizoram & 13 Ors.
[5.] Referring to the above 2 (two) judgments, the learned counsel submits that this Court having regard to the specific provision provided in paragraph no. 4.2 of the Guidelines on DRDA Administration held that the State respondents were bound by the same and more particularly, keeping in view the fund provided by the Central Government in the ratio of 75:25 i.e. 75% of the fund from the Central Government and 25% of the fund from the State Government. Therefore, a direction was given to the State respondents to comply with paragraph 4.2 of the Guidelines within a time frame. Likewise, in the second case as well, the contribution of the Central Government and the State Government in the ratio of 90:10 was taken into consideration by this Court and accordingly, the State respondents were directed to take appropriate action for absorption of the petitioners. The learned counsel submits that the instant petitioners are also no different and they are covered by paragraph no. 4.2 & 4.3 of the Guidelines and therefore, similar benefits have to be extended to them as well. She also submits that it is not the stand of the State Government that the petitioners have been illegally appointed or they have been appointed dehors the guidelines. A perusal of their respective appointment orders clearly goes to show that they all have been properly screened by the Selection Committee or Selection Board before their appointment. Therefore, they form a class of their own and unlike the Muster Roll employees who are engaged without any screening process.
[6.] Mrs. Dinari T Azyu, by referring to the Notification dated 02.02.2018 issued by the Commissioner & Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Rural Development
