Page No.# 1/6 GAHC030003842025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/69/2025 Smt. Lydia Lalthangliani and 2 Ors. D/o Sh. A. Chungnunga R/o Salem Veng, Aizawl, Mizoram 2: Smt. Marina Lalmuanpuii 3: Sh. Ngurthanmawia Sail VERSUS The State of Mizoram and 4 Ors. R/b the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Aizawl 2:The Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram 3:The Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram 4:The Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram 5:The Directo Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms Dinari T Azyu Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram for R 1-5 Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG ORDER Date : 26-06-2025 Heard Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned counsel for the petitioners who has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of the appropriate writ to the respondents for the regularization of the petitioners under the Mizoram Regularization of Contract Employees Scheme, 2008, by considering their case under the Recruitment Rules of 2003. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they were contract Middle School teachers who were initially engaged in the year 2012 and 2013 and have been continuously working as such till date with the approval of the DP&AR and with the concurrence of the Finance Department as well as on the recommendation of the DPC. That the Mizoram Education and Human Resources Development Department (School Education) (Group ‘B’ post) Recruitment Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as Recruitment Rules of 2003) was in force when the petitioners were initially appointed against vacant sanctioned post in the year 2012 to 2013. The essential requirement in the said Recruitment Rules of 2003 amongst others is to be a Graduate and above with the Diploma Certificate in Teachers Education (D.T.Ed.). The petitioners had successfully completed and had acquired the Diploma Degree in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) which is the same as Diploma Certificate in Teachers Education (D.T.Ed.), but having different nomenclature. Meanwhile in supersession of the Recruitment Rules of 2003, the State respondents framed the Mizoram School Education Department (Group ‘B’ post) Recruitment Rules, 2015 (also referred to as Recruitment Rules, 2015) which came into effect from 25.03.2015. Page No.# 3/6 3. The essential criteria provided in the Recruitment Rules, 2015 amongst others is the Mizoram Teachers Eligibility Test paper-II (MTET-II). The contract of the present petitioners continued to be extended and the petitioners had prayed for consideration of their case for regularization as per the Mizoram Regularization of Contract Employees Scheme, 2008 which was not considered due to the MPSC meeting minutes dated 29.05.2018 wherein the respondent authorities/MPSC recommended the extension of the contract engagement to only those persons who had passed the MTET-II. Aggrieved, they had earlier approached this court by filing WP(C) No. 162/2019, praying for a direction to consider their case for regularization under the Mizoram Regularization of Contract Employees Scheme, 2008 (Scheme of 2008) and for a declaration that they are covered by the Recruitment Rules, 2003 and not the Recruitment Rules, 2015. However, during the pendency of the said writ petition, a joint meeting with the Commissioner & Secretary of the School Education Department was held, wherein, vide the minutes of the meeting dated 02.12.2019, it was resolved that the petitioners should be placed before the DPC to consider regularization of their services under the Regularization Scheme of 2008 as per their Recruitment Rules of 2003 by reckoning their contract services w.e.f. 23.05.2013. Accordingly, the petitioners had withdrawn WP(C) No. 162/2019 with a liberty to file afresh. However, on withdrawal of the said writ petition, the School Education Department vide a communication dated 17.07.2023, held that the petitioners were not having MTET and as such, they may be allowed to continue as contract Middle School teachers but their regularization would be considered only after qualifying MTET examination unless a relaxation is obtained from DP&AR(GSW). Accordingly, the DP&AR vide their letter dated 13.09.2023 had instructed the School Education Department Page No.# 4/6 to consider the case of the petitioners in terms of para 3(4) of the OM dated 07.12.2022. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in terms of para 3(4) of the OM dated 07.12.2022, the case of the petitioners should be considered in accordance with the Recruitment Rules in force on the date of occurrence of vacancies of the sanctioned post against which they were regularized i.e., their case should have been considered as per the 2003 Recruitment Rules. The petitioners had submitted their representations dated 23.04.2025 to respondent No. 5 pointing out that they were initially engaged during the year 2012 to 2013 against the vacant post of Middle School teachers in various schools and that the Recruitment Rules of 2003 holds the field during the said period and therefore, the Recruitment Rules of 2003 should be applicable to the petitioners. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that even though the representations of the petitioners were submitted on 23.04.2025 which was duly received by the respondent authority by giving their respect acknowledgement, however, till date, there is no response to their representations and hence, the instant writ petition, for consideration of the regularization of the petitioners under the Regularization Scheme of 2008 by considering their case under the Recruitment Rules, 2003. 6. Notice of motion be issued to the respondents. 7. Ms. Lalnunhlui, learned Government Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the State respondents. 8. On hearing both the parties and on considering the nature of the writ petition filed, wherein it is mentioned that the petitioners had filed a similar Page No.# 5/6 representation dated 23.04.2025 before the concerned respondent authorities, to consider their case for regularization under the Mizoram Regularization of Contract Employees Scheme, 2008 and as per the Mizoram Education and Human Resources Development Department (School Education) (Group ‘B’ post) Recruitment Rules, 2003 by reckoning their contract services w.e.f. 23.05.2013 and had also referred to the minutes of the joint meeting dated 02.12.2019 held in the office chamber of the Commissioner & Secretary of School Education Department and also referred to the instruction of the DP&AR vide their ID No. GSW.8/2023/1003 dated 13.09.2023 for the consideration of their case in terms of para 3(4) of the OM dated 07.12.2022. 9. 9. This Court finds that since the nature of the representation of the petitioners before the respondent authorities is similar with the facts and prayer in the instant Writ Petition, it would be appropriate at this stage, without going into the merits of the matter, that the respondent authorities should first dispose of the representation dated 23.04.2025, since the respondent authorities have a duty to consider and dispose of such representations within a reasonable time frame. Accordingly, the State respondents are to consider and dispose of the representations submitted by the petitioners dated 23.04.2025 expeditiously, within a period of 3 (three) weeks from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order in the interest of justice and equity. 10. WP(C) No. 69/2025 thus stands disposed of at the motion stage as above. Page No.# 6/6 JUDGE Comparing Assistant