JUDGMENT :

NELSON SAILO, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. H. Lalmalsawmi, learned Government Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5. None appears for the respondent Nos. 6 to 9 despite notice. Vide Order dated 10.05.2023, notice was declared to be complete upon all the private respondents. Having regard to the nature of the case projected by the petitioner, the writ petition is taken up for disposal at this stage.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she was initially engaged as Muster Roll (MR) Lower Division Clerk (LDC) on 10.01.1996 without the approval of the Government. She continued to work as such under the respondent No. 5 until she came to be engaged with the approval of the Government in the DP&AR and in the Finance Department through Engagement Card dated 23.04.2012. She was first engaged for the period w.e.f. 01.03.2012 to 28.02.2013 and thereafter, her engagement was extended from time to time and till date. According to the petitioner, the State respondents, vide Office Memorandum dated 29.05.2018 provisionally fixed the inter se seniority of MR LDC employees, wherein the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 3 while the private respondent Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 were placed at Serial Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the Government of Mizoram framed the Scheme on Regularization of Muster Roll Employees in the year 2000, vide Notification dated 23.03.2000. The regularization of MR Employees Scheme was thereafter amended from time to time and the scheme in vogue currently is the Government of Mizoram Regularization of Muster Roll Employees Scheme, 2018 (MR Regularization Scheme). As per Clause 4 of the MR Regularization Scheme, any person who has been continuously engaged on Muster Roll capacity for not less than 7 years as per paragraph No. 3 of the Scheme shall be eligible for regularization to the corresponding post subject to having requisite educational and other qualifications and having the appropriate benchmark in their performance reports for 5 preceding years and having the appropriate seniority. It is further provided that the regularization shall be made against 35% of the direct recruitment quota in the corresponding post. Clause 6 of the MR Regularization Scheme provides that the upper age limit of a Muster Roll employee being considered for regularization can be condoned subject to the employee not being already over-aged at the time of initial engagement.

4. The respondent authorities undertook the process for filling up of 4 posts of LDC by way of regularizing the eligible MR employees in the Department and the name of the petitioner alongwith the private respondents were considered. However, it was held that as the petitioner was already over-aged at the time of her initial engagement on 01.03.2012, she was found ineligible to be considered for regularization. As for the private respondents, who are junior to the petitioner, they are found fit to be regularized and accordingly regularized. The petitioner being aggrieved is before this Court.

5. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel submits that the petitioner was initially engaged as Muster Roll LDC on 10.01.1996 without the Government’s approval and later on with the approval of the Government w.e.f. 01.03.2012, vide Engagement Card dated 23.04.2012. The learned counsel submits that the State respondents in the DP&AR (ARW) vide Office Memorandum dated 27.08.2018 pursuant to the decision taken by the Council of Ministers in their Meetings held on 04.06.2018 and 12.06.2018 approved the proposal for ex-post facto approval of the engagement of MR employees under the four works Department, namely, Power and Electricity Department, Public Health Engineering Department and Public Works Department, who were engaged on or before 19.02.2014. He submits that the petitioner is also engaged under one of the works Department i.e. Irrigation and Water Resources Department and therefore, she should be given