JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A.R Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Linda L Fambawl, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents and Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC for the respondent Union of India.

2. By filing this writ petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the impugned notification issued under Memo No. A. 11013/1/2010-EDN dated 22.04.2010(Annexure-4) by which, 1305 posts of Hindi Teachers under Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) of financial assistance for appointment of language Teachers was created to be filled up on contract basis and co-terminus with the scheme of central funding. The break-up of the posts is 389 posts for High School Hindi Teacher and 916 posts for Middle School Hindi Teacher.

3. The facts of the case in brief is that pursuant to the creation of posts vide the impugned Notification dated 22.04.2010, the Director of School Education (respondent No.4) issued an advertisement for filling up of the posts that was created and the petitioners accordingly applied for the same. On being selected, the petitioner Nos. 1 to 375 were temporary engaged as High School Hindi Teachers under the CSS on contract basis at a fixed remuneration of Rs. 9750 up to 31.03.2011 subject to acceptance of terms and conditions as allowed in the agreement to be signed by the parties vide Office Order dated 18.02.2011 (Annexure-6). The engagement of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 375 were subsequently extended from time to time by the respondent No. 4 and their fixed pay was also enhanced to Rs. 29,000/-per month. Lastly, the respondent No. 4 vide Office Order dated 02.06.2016 (Annexure12) extended the engagement of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 375 on contract and co-terminus basis w.e.f 01.03.2016 to 28.02.2017 at a fixed remuneration of Rs. 29,000/-per month.

4. The respondent No. 4 also vide Order dated 18.02.2011 (Annexure-13) issued the temporary engagement of the petitioner Nos. 376 to 1232 and others as Middle School Hindi Teachers under CSS contract basis at a fixed remuneration of Rs.7500/-up to 31.03.2011 subject to acceptance of terms and conditions as laid down in the agreement. The engagement of the said petitioners was subsequently extended from time to time and lastly, the respondent No. 4 vide Office Order dated 02.06.2010 (Annexure-19) extended the engagement of the said petitioners w.e.f. 01.03.2016 to 28.02.2017 on a fixed remuneration of Rs. 29,000/-per month subject to the terms and conditions laid down in the agreement.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that the proforma respondent No. 5 vide Letter dated 11.11.2016 had conveyed approval of Rs. 6,26,88,000/-as the 1st installment towards salary of 1305 Hindi Teachers for the year 2016-2017 to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Thereafter, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 illegally discontinued the engagement of the petitioners on contract basis w.e.f. 01.03.2017 because of the discontinuation of financial assistance by the proforma respondent No. 5. According to the petitioners, the proforma respondent No. 5 vide Letter dated 08.03.2017 (Annexure-21) had written to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 explaining that the objection of the scheme was to provide support to the State Governments for effective implementation of “three language formula” and as per the guidelines of the revised scheme, financial assistance in respect of North Eastern States will be given till the terminal year of 12th Plan period i.e. financial year 2016-2017. As per the provisions of the scheme, the liability of the posts created with the approval of the Department during the 11th & 12th 5 year Plan is to be taken over by the respective State Government, after completion of the 12th Plan period. Accordingly, from the financial year 2017-2018, the responsibility of maintenance of the Teachers would rest upon the concerned State Government. However, despite this position, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 failed to take over the responsibility of maintenance o