SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 1466

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, C.J., ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY, J.
Dr. Chhakchhuak Lalthanpara, Son of C. Laldanga – Appellant 
Versus
Dr. Lairuatpuli Hiawnmual – Respondent 
Writ Appeal No.236 of 2018
Decided on : 07-08-2025.

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. D. Saikia, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. B. Gogoi, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. N.Gautam, Ms. P. Bhattacharya, Additional Advocate General, Mizoram

The relaxation of recruitment rules by the Governor is permissible when justified by operational exigencies, provided it does not adversely affect the rights of existing employees.

Headnote:(A) Mizoram Health Service Rules, 2009 - Rule 8, Rule 10(1), Rule 10(3), Rule 30 - Absorption of an employee working on deputation challenged - The learned Single Judge observed that the absorption was illegal as it contravened the prescribed rules and lacked justifiable reasons - The Governor's decision to relax the rules was upheld on the basis of operational exigencies, family considerations, and the appellant's performance, not found to infringe rights of other officers. (Paras 2, 11, 25, 44, 46)

(B) Delegation of powers - The Governor may relax rules only when satisfied that it causes undue hardship or is necessary in public interest - The procedure must not be exercised arbitrarily but based on justifiable reasons. (Paras 26, 30)

Facts of the case:
The appellant, while on deputation from ESI Corporation, was absorbed into the Mizoram Health Service, faced opposition from other Medical Officers, who claimed it was illegal as it contravened the recruitment rules and their promotion rights. (Paras 5, 11, 12)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the absorption of the appellant was backed by sufficient justification and did not adversely impact the promotional prospects of the private respondents. (Paras 38, 40)

Issues: Whether the appellant’s absorption contravened the Rules of 2009 and whether there was sufficient justification for the relaxation of the rules in this case. (Paras 18, 42)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the relaxation of the rules by the Governor was justified on grounds of public service exigency and the appellant's prior contributions, with no arbitrary favoritism found. (Paras 39, 46)

Result: Writ appeal allowed; absorption of the appellant in the Mizoram Health Service stands ratified.

Table of Content
1. absorption process under the rules of 2009 (Para 2 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. challenging absorption procedures under the rules (Para 11 , 12 , 13)
3. understanding recruitment and relaxation rules (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
4. justification for relaxing recruitment rules (Para 18 , 19 , 24 , 25)
5. statutory basis for absorption claims (Para 30 , 31 , 32)
6. impact of absorption on existing officers (Para 38 , 39 , 40)
7. final decision on absorption validity (Para 46 , 47 , 48)

JUDGMENT :

Ashutosh Kumar, C.J.

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 for relaxation of the Recruitment Rules for absorption of the appellan

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top