Page No.# 1/9 GAHC030000172022 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/2/2022 Sh. Gospel Lalnunzauva and 9 Ors Bungtlang Lawngtlai District, Mizoram VERSUS Lai Autonomous District Council and 4 Ors R/b the Chief Executive Member, LADC, Lawngtlai Mizoram 2:The Executive Member i/c LAD Lai Autonomous District Council (LADC) 3:The Officer Finance and Accounts Dept. Office of the Lai Autonomous District Council 4:The Officer Sanitation Dept. Office of the Lai Autonomous District Council 5:The Officer Disaster Management and Rehabilitation Dept Page No.# 2/9 :::BEFORE::: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH MAZUMDAR Advocates for the petitioner(s) : Mr. Aldrin Zothanmawia Advocates for the respondent(s) : Mr. R. Lalhmunsiama, Standing Counsel Date on which judgment is reserved : NA Date of pronouncement of judgment : 20.11.2025 Whether the pronouncement is of the : No. operative part of the judgment ? Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced? JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. Aldrin Zothanmawia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and also heard Mr. R. Lalhmunsiama, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This matter was heard at length on 14.11.2025 and was directed to be listed today as a part-heard matter. 3. Both counsels appearing for the contesting parties have made their submissions and this Court has also perused the materials available on record. 4. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 28.01.2021 issued by the respondent authorities, by which the post on which the petitioners claim to have been appointed were abolished and the services of the petitioners were terminated Page No.# 3/9 consequently. 5. The writ petition was filed on the 12th of January, 2022. 6. The case of the petitioners as reflected in the records is that by Notification dated 17.09.2020, the Lai Autonomous District Council had created two posts of Sectional Assistant, four posts of Sirder, one post of Data Entry Operator and one Group-D post. By another notification of the same date, two posts of Trainer, one post of Data Entry Operator and six posts of Field Worker were also created. It is the further case of the petitioners that on the 1st of October, 2020, 18th of September, 2020, 8th of October, 2020, 7th of October, 2020, and 15th of October, 2020, the petitioners came to be appointed in the aforesaid posts, which appointment was subject to approval of the DPC. The appointments were made in the interest of Public Service with a condition that the incumbent appointed would be on probation for a period of 2 years with effect from joining duty. By order dated 28.01.2021, the petitioners were informed that the Executive Council of the LADC had taken a resolution that the creation of the posts to which they had been appointed were outside the financial provisions of the Annual Budget of 2020-2021 and beyond the Lai Autonomous District Council (General Service) Rules, 2011 and as such, the creation of the posts were void ab initio. The said order further communicated that the Executive Committee in its meeting held on 13.01.2021 had resolved to nullify and revoke the aforesaid orders and all appointments made on the strength of the aforesaid orders were terminated. It was informed by the same order that in Page No.# 4/9 consequence of such nullification and revocation of the creation of the posts, the services of the appointees in respect of the above revoked posts stood terminated with immediate effect. 7. This writ petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid order. 8. Mr. Aldrin Zothanmawia, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has referred to the different provisions of the Lai Autonomous District Council (General Service) Rules, 2011 and the Lai Autonomous District Council (Constitution, Conduct of Business etc.) Rules, 2010 to impress upon this Court that the decision taken by the Council regarding violation of provisions of the Rules of 2011 are not correct and therefore, the revocation of the creation of posts is illegal. He has further submitted by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents that the grounds taken in the affidavit-in- opposition are not the grounds reflected in the impugned order dated 20.01.2021 which in itself demonstrates, according to him, that the order is not sustainable in the form in which it was passed. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that it cannot be the case of the respondent authorities that, even assuming that they had exercised the powers for termination of services of the petitioners as probationers, the same could have been done without any notice to the present petitioners. He has submitted that the creation of the posts and the manner in which the appointments have been made were not at the hands of the petitioners and they had merely accepted the appointments which was made by the respondents and they had, acting in furtherance Page No.# 5/9 thereof, had joined their services and were faithfully rendering their services. In such view of the matter, the learned counsel prays that the impugned order dated 20.01.2021 be interfered with by this Court and the same be set aside and quashed, entitling the petitioners to all consequential benefits thereafter. 10. Mr. R. Lalhmunsiama, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the provisions of the Lai Autonomous District Council (Constitution Conduct of Business etc.) Rules, 2010 provides for a specific manner in which a post can be created within the Secretariat of the Council and such procedure had not been followed when the posts were created. He has also raised an allegation that the appointment of the petitioners suffer from illegalities and therefore, it was incumbent upon the Council to take a decision on the legality of the creation of the posts and also with regard to the continuation of the petitioners in their services. 11. The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in any view of the matter, the period of probation of the petitioners has now ended and there can be no question of reinstating them in service at this point of time. The learned counsel for the respondent has also submitted that the prayers made by the writ petitioners are misconceived to the extent that abolition of posts is a matter of policy decision, which this Court could be loathe to interfere with unless procedural lapses are pointed out. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners have referred to the judgments of the Apex Court delivered in the case of Mohinder Page No.# 6/9 Singh Gill & Another -Vs- The Chief Election Commissioner, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 405, and the case of V.P. Ahuja -Vs- State of Punjab, reported in (2000) 3 SCC 239 to buttress his submissions. 13. This Court has gone through the pleadings, the provisions of the Lai Autonomous District Council (General Service) Rules, 2011, and the Lai Autonomous District Council (Constitution, Conduct of Business) 2010 which were referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the provisions of the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution of India and the General Clauses Act as referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents. 14. Although elaborate arguments have been made by the learned counsel for the petitioners regarding the manner in which the different provision of rules are required to be interpreted, this Court finds that there is a procedural lapse on the part of the respondent authorities in terminating the services of the petitioners without having given any notice of such action proposed to be taken against them. 15. It is a settled position in law that unless an appointment is alleged to be fraudulent or based on forgery, incumbents serving on a particular post are entitled to a notice of the intent of the appointing authority to terminate their services, prior to effectuating such termination. In the present case, it is noticed that while the petitioners came to be appointed in the month of September and October, 2020 within few months of such appointment, the Page No.# 7/9 respondents have taken a decision to abolish the posts and also to terminate the services of the petitioners. In the considered view of this Court, such termination cannot be resorted to without a prior notice to the petitioners and without bringing to their notice the reason for such intended termination and if required, to give them enough and adequate opportunity to contest the claim of the respondents regarding the defects in creation of the posts and the intent to abolish the post on which the petitioners were serving. 16. It would be thereafter incumbent upon the respondents to take into consideration the grounds raised by the incumbents serving in the post and come to a conclusion regarding the abolition of the posts and the termination of the petitioners. In the above view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Order dated 28.01.2021 was passed without any notice upon the petitioners regarding the intent of the respondents to terminate their services. 17. The order dated 28.01.2021, insofar as it relates to the termination of the services of the petitioners, is accordingly interfered with. Since the ground taken by the respondent authorities is the requirement of abolishing the posts held by the petitioners on the ground that it was outside the financial provisions of the annual budget and also beyond the Lai Autonomous District Council (General Service) Rules, 2011 itself, this Court directs the respondents to serve notice upon the petitioners regarding their intent to abolish the posts on the grounds mentioned in the order dated 28.01.2021 and also their intent to terminate the services of the petitioners, specifying all Page No.# 8/9 the grounds that the respondents would rely upon, in the event the respondents deem it necessary to terminate the services of the petitioners. 18. Such notice shall be served upon the petitioners within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and the petitioners herein shall be afforded sufficient and adequate time, not less than three weeks, to place their replies to the notice issued by the respondent authorities. The respondent authorities would also give opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners, since an allegation has also been leveled in the affidavit-in-opposition regarding the legality of the process of their appointment. The respondents would then be at liberty to take decision on the requirement of either abolishing or retaining the posts being held by the petitioners and also on the legality of the process of appointment of the petitioners. Such decision shall be taken within an outer period of four weeks from the date of affording personal hearing to the petitioners. 19. The regularization or otherwise of the services of the petitioners from the date of their termination to the date of the decision being taken by the respondents shall be dependent upon the outcome of the decision that may taken by the respondents on the representations of the petitioners. 20. It is made clear that this Court has not decided or observed upon the merits of the arguments and submissions made in the writ petition and they are left open to be decided in an appropriate case. Page No.# 9/9 21. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. 22. No costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant