Page No.# 1/6 GAHC030004042025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/76/2025 Smt. Lalbiaknungi and Anr. D/o Zoramthanga (L) R/o H/No B-33, ICFAI Road, Durtlang North, Aizawl 2: Smt. Lalawmpuii 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 R1-5 Page No.# 2/6 B E F O R E HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG ORDER 04.07.2025 Heard Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned counsel for the petitioner, also heard Ms. Lalnunhlui, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondents. This is an application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus and/ or any other appropriate writ guaranteed under the Constitution and other laws framed thereunder. 2. The case of the petitioner No. 1 was that she was appointed as Contract Lecturer in the Department of Education at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Serchhip vide notification dated 27.06.2012 and the petitioner No. 2 was also appointed as Contract Lecturer in the Department of Chemistry at Govt. Higher Secondary School, Siaha vide notification dated 19.07.2012. Both the petitioners have duly executed an Agreement Bond with the respondent authorities concerned and their Contractual engagement have also been extended from time to time with the approval of the DP&AR and with the concurrence of the Finance Department. The contract period of the petitioners have thus been extended till 28.02.2026. Meanwhile, the Page No.# 3/6 respondent authorities had enacted the Mizoram School Education Department (Group ‘A’ posts) Recruitment Rules, 2015 (hereafter referred to as Recruitment Rules of 2015). Both the petitioners have acquired essential qualifications laid down in the Recruitment Rules of 2015. The petitioners after having completed more than 5 years continuous service of contract basis were eligible for regularization under the Mizoram Regularization of Contract Employees Scheme, 2008 (hereafter referred to as Scheme of 2008). 3. Thereafter, vide notification dated 02.07.2018, the State respondent, had allowed one time regularization under para 4 (2) of the Scheme of 2008 allowing the consideration of regularization of 158 contract employees under various departments who have been continuously engaged on contract basis for more than 5 years. The petitioners were placed at Serial Nos. 114 & 115 respectively in the list to be given one time regularization under the said Notification dated 02.07.2018. However, due to some confusion, the date of which the contract services of the petitioners were to be reckoned was not considered. The petitioners then approached the concerned respondent authorities to considered their case and accordingly, the petitioners were allowed to count the date of actual engagement from their respective initial engagement vide Office Order dated 25.07.2019. Page No.# 4/6 The petitioners then requested the respondent authorities on 01.04.2025 to consider their case since they have fulfilled all the essential qualifications in terms of the Scheme of 2008 and the Recruitment Rules of 2015. The respondent authorities however, till date have not responded to their representations dated 01.04.2025. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the petitioners had obtained the status of sanctioned post and vacancy, through RTI, vide Letter dated 11.02.2025 wherein, there are 3 Nos. vacancies in Education Department and 2 Nos. vacancies in Chemistry Department under the Govt. Higher Secondary School, Mizoram. The learned counsel thus submits that the present petitioners may be accommodating in the said vacancies and that they had also informed the concerned authorities of the said vacancies in their representation filed on 01.04.2025. 5. Issue notice of motion to the respondents. 6. Ms. Lalnunhlui, learned Govt. Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the State respondents. No need to issue formal notice. Requisite copies of the writ petition to be furnished to the learned Govt. Advocate. Page No.# 5/6 7. Considering the nature of the instant Writ Petition and on hearing both the parties, this Court finds that the representation made by both the petitioners on 01.04.2025 to the respondents to consider their case for regularization as per the Mizoram Regularization of Contract Employees Scheme, 2008 is still kept pending by the concerned respondent authorities. It is also seen that the grounds for the consideration of their case in their representation, is similar to the grounds raised by the petitioners in filing the instant Writ Petition. This Court finds that the State respondents have the obligation and duty to dispose of such types of representations within a reasonable period of time. 8. This Court therefore finds it appropriate to disposed of the instant Writ Petition at the motion stage, without going into the merits of the case, by directing the State respondents to considered and disposed of the representations filed by the petitioners dated 01.04.2025, and also be mindful of the fact that as per the reply of their RTI application dated 11.02.2025, there appear to be vacancies against the post for which the petitioners have filed their representations. 9. In view of the above, the State respondents are directed to dispose of both the representations dated 01.04.2025 submitted by the petitioner Nos. 1 Page No.# 6/6 & 2 respectively, within a period of 3 weeks from the date of receiving a certified true copy of this order by abiding to the principles of equity and fair play. 10. Accordingly, the instant Writ Petition stands disposed of as above. JUDGE Comparing Assistant