Back
2023 Supreme(Gau) 1091
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MARLI VANKUNG, MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, JJ.
State of Mizoram – Appellant
Versus
Lalhnehliana Sailo and Ors. – Respondents
I.A.(Civil) 117 of 2022, WA 9 of 2022, I.A.(Civil) 116 of 2022
Decided on : 22-09-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Mary Lalruatkimi Khiangte (Addl.AG/GA, Mizoram) Advocate
For the Respondent: Ms Dinari T Azyu
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the notification dated 02.02.2018, which prohibits absorption of employees appointed after 2008, cannot override the DRDA guidelines and prevent the petitioners' absorption into the line department.
Headnote:
DRDA Guidelines - Absorption of Employees - 4.2, 4.3 - The court discussed the DRDA guidelines from 1999 to 2018, particularly focusing on para 4.2 and 4.3, which require the State Rural Development Department to draw up a 3-5 year plan for absorption of staff into the line department and provide for the selection of technical posts by specific committees. The court emphasized that the notification dated 02.02.2018, which prohibited absorption of employees appointed after 2008, was not in conformity with the guidelines and could not prevent the petitioners' absorption.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved employees appointed under DRDA seeking absorption into the line department. The state respondents rejected their representation for absorption, leading to the filing of a writ petition. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, directing the state respondents to absorb the petitioners into the line department.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the notification dated 02.02.2018, which prohibited absorption of employees appointed after 2008, was not in conformity with the DRDA guidelines. It held that the petitioners were duly recommended and appointed by due process as per the guidelines and thus, should be absorbed into the line department.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioners were entitled to absorption into the line department as per the DRDA guidelines, despite the state respondents' rejection based on the notification dated 02.02.2018.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the DRDA guidelines, particularly para 4.2 and 4.3, and the finding that the notification dated 02.02.2018 was not in conformity with the guidelines and could not prevent the petitioners' absorption.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the learned Single Judge's decision, directing the state respondents to absorb the petitioners into the line department in accordance with the DRDA guidelines.
JUDGMENT :
Marli Vankung, J.
Heard Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate for the State/appellants along with Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned counsel for the respondents and Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC for respondent No. 26.
2. This is an appeal filed against the Judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in Judgment and Order dated 17.03.2022 passed in W.P.(C) No. 13/2021 (Aizawl Bench).
3. Facts of the case in a nutshell is that, the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India had formulated guidelines on DRDA Administration starting from the year 1999, wherein DRDA is entrusted as the principal organ at the District level to oversee the implementation of different Anti-poverty Programme with a funding pattern between the Centre and the States in the ratio of 75:25 initially and later on in the ratio of 90:10 w.e.f. the financial year 2008-2009. Recruitment of employees was conducted from time to time by the authority concerned. Thereafter, in the years 2002, 2008 and 2018 certain modifications were made to the provisions/guidelines, however, 4.2 and 4.3 of the guidelines have not been modified and they remained the same. As per para 4.2 of the guidelines, the State respondents are required to draw up the 3 to 5 year plan for their absorption. The employees who were recruited before or during the year 1999 then approached the court in WP(C) No. 73 of 2006 (Laldinpull & 49 Ors. Vs. State of Mizoram & 9 Ors.) for their absorption and regularisation as per 4.2 of the guidelines and as per the report submitted by a study team constituted by the state respondent which was decided in their favour. Thereafter in Judgment & Order dated 22.11.2017 passed in WP(C) No. 175/2016 (PC. Lallawmkima & 91 Ors. Vs. State of Mizoram & 13 Ors.), this court directed the state respondents for absorption of those persons appointed to different posts in the DRDAs of different districts between the years 2000 to 2008 holding that the case of the petitioners were similar to those petitioners in WP(C) No. 73 of 2006.
4. In the instant case, the petitioners were appointed under District Rural Development Agency/DRDA, either as Assistant Engineer, Assistant Project Officer, Accounts Officer, UDC, LDC, Driver or IV Grade between 30.11.2009 to 03.02.2017 on contract basis on being recommended by the duly constituted Departmental Screening Committee/Selection Committee. They then submitted a representation for absorption of their services in the line department which was rejected by the state respondents vide Communication dated 15.04.2021 and hence the petitioners had approach the High Court (Aizawl Bench) in WP (C) No.123/2021 for redressal of their grievances.
5. The case of the petitioners (respondents in the instant Writ Appeal) before the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.123/2021 was that their case is a covered case wherein, similarly situated persons were given the benefit of absorption in service in the Line Departments the Judgment & Order dated 22.07.2008 passed by a Coordinate Bench in WP(C) No. 72/2006 (Laldinpuii & 49 Ors. Vs. State of Mizoram & 9 Ors.) and the Judgment & Order dated 22.11.2017 passed in WP(C) No. 175/2016 (PC. Lallawmkima & 91 Ors. Vs. State of Mizoram & 13 Ors.). It was submitted that in view of the provisions provided in para 4.2 of the guidelines of DRDA Administration and keeping in view that the fund provided by the Central Government in the ratio of 75:25 and later to the ratio of 90:10, where the Central Government was to contribute 75% and later 90% and pursuant to introduction of DRDA, the instant petitioners are no different from the previous petitioners since they are covered by para 4.2 & 4.3 in the recent modification in the year, 2018. Further, as recent as 17.01.2022, the Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India had asked the State respondents to draw a 3 to 4 year plan for absorption of staff working under the said Rural Development Department into the Line Departments and th
