Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1211
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, CJ., ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
Dr. Chhakchhuak Lalthanpara Son of C. Laldanga – Appellant
Versus
Dr. Lairuatpuli Hiawnmual, Wife of Jims Lalsangzuala – Respondents
WRIT APPEAL NO. 236 OF 2018
Decided On : 07-08-2025
For the Petitioner:Mr. D. Saikia, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. B. Gogoi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ms. P. Bhattacharya, Additional Advocate General, Mizoram for respondent Nos.5 to 8.
The Governor's relaxation of service rules for absorbing a deputationist is valid if justified by public interest and effective service implementation, not merely to favor an individual.
Headnote:(A) Mizoram Health Service Rules, 2009 - The rules were alleged to have been violated regarding the absorption of an employee on deputation. The Court found that the Governor's decision to relax rules for the appellant's absorption was justified under Rule 30 for service exigency, highlighting the importance of effective health scheme implementation. (Paras 2-5, 37-46)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was initially on deputation and later absorbed into the Mizoram Health Service, which was challenged by other doctors on grounds of illegal relaxation of recruitment rules, citing Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Findings of Court:
The Court established that the appellant's absorption served public interest and did not infringe on the rights of other medical officers.
Issues: Whether the absorption of the appellant violated the Mizoram Health Service Rules and affected promotional avenues of existing staff.
Ratio Decidendi: The relaxation of rules for absorption was permissible under Rule 30, provided there was a valid reason for it being exercised.
Result: Writ appeal allowed, ratifying the appellant's absorption.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. absorption of appellant in mizoram health service. (Para 2 , 3 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 2. challenge to absorption on grounds of legality and fairness. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. justifications needed for rule relaxation. (Para 18 , 21 , 39) |
| 4. absorption processes must involve justification and compliance with rules. (Para 20) |
| 5. conditions for relaxation of rules under scrutiny. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 30) |
| 6. rules governing service absorption must be clearly adhered to. (Para 44) |
| 7. judgment set aside, absorption ratified. (Para 46 , 47 , 48) |
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL )
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
Heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Advocate for the appellant; Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. N. Gautam, learned Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 4/writ petitioners and Ms. P. Bhattacharya, learned Additional Advocate General, Mizoram for the respondent Nos.5 to 8/State.
2. The appellant has questioned the judgment & order dated 10.07.2018 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court (Aizawl Bench) in WP(C) No.29/2016, whereby the absorption of the appellant in the Mizoram Health Service has been held to be de hors the Mizoram Health Service Rules, 2009 (hereinafter to be referred as the “Rules of 2009”) and unsustainable in the eyes of law.
3. The learned Single Judge has directed the State respondents to take steps for repatriation of the appellant to his parent Department if his term of deputation is over or unless his period of deputation is extended as per law.
4. 4(four) Medical Officers (Grade-II) under General Duty Medical Officer (GDMO) Sub-Cadre of Mizoram Health Service had challenged the Notification No.A.35018/1/ 2015-HFW dated 01.09.2015, whereby the appellant was absorbed to Grade-I of Mizoram Health Service under GDMO Sub-Cadre, Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of Mizoram on permanent basis with effect from 15.11.2015, in the Scale of Pay Band-3, Rs.15,600 –Rs.39,100/- + Grade Pay of Rs.7,100/-.
5. The appellant had been working as Insurance Medical Officer (Grade-I) under the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation (hereinafter to be referred as “ESI Corporation”). He was deputed to the Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of Mizoram, for a period of 3(three) years and was posted at Civil Hospital, Aizawl.
6. After the completion of 3(three) years on deputation, on a representation made by the appellant for his absorption as a regular employee under the Mizoram Government, his deputation was extended for a further period of 1(one) year with effect from 11.05.2014 to 10.05.2015.
7. Before the expiry of the extended period of 1(one) year, another representation was filed by the appellant, seeking absorption as a regular employee of the Government.
This representation was forwarded to the Principal Secretary, Health &Family Welfare Department, Mizoram. While forwarding the request of the appellant, the Principal Director, Health & Family Welfare Department noted that the appellant had tendered great efforts to ensure successful implementation of both Rashtriya Swasthya Bima Yojana (RSBY) and Mizoram State Health Care Scheme.
8. The Government of Mizoram, after duly examining the request of the appellant, sought the permission of the ESI Corporation for issuing No Objection Certificate (NOC) for absorption of the appellant in the Mizoram Health Service, which permission/NOC was granted by the ESI Corporation.
While making such a request, the good performance of the appellant, his family problems and the approval of the Hon’ble Minister of the Department was also considered.
9. Thereafter, as it appears from the records, the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (General Service Wing), Government of Mizoram, submitted a proposal to the Secretary, Mizoram Public Service Commission, Aizawl, seeking its comments on the absorption of the appellant.
The Mizoram Public Service Commission concurred with the proposal of the Government
