Page No.# 1/4 GAHC030005982025 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/101/2025 Sh. Laltlankima S/o Vanlalhruaia R/o Kulikawn, Aizawl, Mizoram. VERSUS The State of Mizoram R/b the Secretary, Irrigation and Water Resources Dept. and Anr. MINECO, Mizoram, Aizawl.2:The State of Mizoram R/b the Chief Engineer Irrigation and Water Resources Dept Advocate for the Petitioner : Ms. Rosalynn L Hmar Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram for R1 & 2 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN O R D E R 27.10.2025 Heard Ms. Rosalynn L. Hmar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Lalnunhluii, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. In this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the cancellation letter No. A.12035/01/2024- Page No.# 2/4 I&WR/CE(Estt.), dated 27.06.2025, issued by the Irrigation and Water Resources Department. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned letter, dated 27.06.2025, the respondent authorities have cancelled the appointment letter of the petitioner, bearing order No. A.12035/01/2024-I&WR(CE)/Estt./130, dated 25.06.2025, issued by the Irrigation and Water Resource Department. 4. Ms. Rosalynn L. Hmar, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had appeared in the selection process for being appointed to the post of Sectional Assistant, under Irrigation and Water Resources Department, on the basis of the result of the examination and on the recommendation of the DPC, vide order dated 25.06.2025. But, subsequently, vide impugned letter, dated 27.06.2025, the appointment of the petitioner, along with three others were cancelled without giving any reason and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Ms. Rosalynn L. Hmar also submits that thereafter, the petitioner had filed one representation dated 18.08.2025, but the same failed to evoke any response from the respondent authorities and being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition. 4.1. Ms. Rosalynn L. Hmar further submits that during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner has received one offer letter on 17.10.2025, dated 01.08.2025, issued by the Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Water Resource Department, offering appointment to the petitioner to the post of Sectional Assistant under Irrigation and Water Resources Department, and in the said letter, it is stated that “Acceptance or otherwise of this offer should reach the undersigned within 5 (five) days from the date of issue of this letter failing which it will be presumed that you do not accept appointment offered to you.” Ms. Rosalynn L. Hmar submits that though the said letter is of dated Page No.# 3/4 01.08.2025, yet the petitioner has received the same on 17.10.2025, and that the petitioner has been offered appointment to the said post. However, she submits that only five days time has been given in the said letter dated 01.08.2025, for acceptance or otherwise and in the event of extension of the said date, the petitioner is willing to withdraw this petition. She further submits that the petitioner may be compensated for subjecting him to mental agony and harassment and also for compelling him to approach this Court by filing the present petition. 5. During the course of deliberation, Ms. Lalnunhluii, learned Government Advocate for the respondents was asked to obtain instruction as regard the said letter, dated 01.08.2025, issued by the Chief Engineer, Office of the Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Water Resources Department, and on instruction, she submits that the appointment letter of the petitioner is ready and it will be issued on withdrawal of the present petition. On a further query of this Court as to whether the respondent authorities would extend the period of five days for acceptance or otherwise as indicated in the letter dated 01.08.2025, she submits that the respondents will not insist upon same. 6. Under the given facts and circumstances, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition on withdrawal without adjudicating the same on merit. However, it is provided that the respondent authorities shall issue the appointment letter to the petitioner within two working days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order without insisting the period of five days, as mentioned in the offer letter, dated 1st of August, 2025. The petitioner shall obtain a certified copy of this order and place the same before the respondents forthwith. Since this petition is being disposed of on withdrawal, this Court is not inclined to grant any compensation to the petitioner. Page No.# 4/4 7. The offer letter produced before the court today shall be marked as Annexure – A and be tagged with the record. JUDGE Comparing Assistant