Page No.# 1/7 GAHC030000622026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : I.A.(Civil)/28/2026 State of Mizoram and 5 Ors. r/b the Chief Secy. to the Govt. of Mizoram 2: The Commissioner and Secy. to the Govt. of Mizoram School Education Dept. 3: The Secy. to the Govt. of Mizoram DP and AR 4: The Secy. to the Govt. of Mizoram Finance Dept. 5: The Director School Education Dept. Govt. of Mizoram 6: The State Project Director Sarva Shiksha Abhiya VERSUS Mizoram SSA Teachers Association and Anr. r/b its President, Chaltlang, Aizawl, Mizoram 2:Sh. R. Lalrinpui Advocate for the Petitioner : Mrs. Mary Lalruatkimi Khiangte, GA, Mizoram Advocate for the Respondent : Page No.# 2/7 BEFORE HONORABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHAMIMA JAHAN ORDER Date : 23.07.2026 Heard Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Government Advocate for the State of Mizoram and Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned Counsel for all the respondents. 2. This is an application filed under Section 151 of the C.P.C. praying for extension of time in complying with the directions given in judgment and order dated 17.03.2023 passed in Writ Petition No. 128/2019. The learned Counsel for the applicant, Ms. Mary L. Khiangte had placed the steps taken towards compliance of the directions contained in the said judgment dated 17.03.2023. By the said judgment, this Court after a lengthy discussion on the issue at hand had directed the State Respondents to consider regularizing the services of the members of the petitioner association against the existing vacant post of Government Teachers in the appropriate grade, keeping in mind the experiences and the training undergone by the members of the petitioner association and also by keeping in mind the object and mandate of Right to Education Act. This Court by the said order had also directed in the alternative to sanction new post as SSA (Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan) Teacher by creating such cadre. It was also directed that the State Government in order to give effect to the directions, may frame a scheme providing for further terms and conditions on which such regularizing shall be done. This Court had directed that the said exercise should be initiated and completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the said order. 3. The petitioner association being aggrieved by non-compliance of the said order had filed the contempt application being Contempt Case No. 17/2023 which is pending disposal before this Court. During the pendency of the said contempt Page No.# 3/7 application, the instant Interlocutory Application has been filed by the State Respondents for extension of time to comply with the said judgment and order dated 17.03.2023, as stated above. 4. The learned Counsel for the State Respondents had stated that as ordered by this Court in the said order dated 17.03.2023 that in alternative, the State Respondents can frame a scheme for regularizing the services of the petitioner, the State Government had formulated the scheme namely “The Government of Mizoram Regularization of Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) Employees Scheme 2024” and that the scheme was formulated on 18.06.2024 and the same provided that the scheme will come into force from the date of publication in the official gazette and the said scheme was published in the official gazette on 18.06.2024, which means that the scheme came into effect from and on 18.06.2024. She thereafter stated that subsequently on 27.06.2024, a meeting was held to discuss the representation of Samagra Shiksha Mizoram employees and in the said meeting, it was decided that a study team should be constituted for implementation of the said scheme. She also stated that the study team was constituted to look into the aspect of regularization of current employees. She thereafter stated that a study team was also constituted to look into the aspect of regularization of the employees working under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme and that the same includes all the employees in every district working under the Samagra Shiksha Mizoram. She then stated by order dated 28.08.2024, the Governor of Mizoram had ordered that the said study team would also look into the aspect of making recommendation for restructuring the administrative set up of Samagra Shiksha Mizoram and the Governor of Mizoram had also appointed the Deputy Director in the Directorate of SCERT as member of the study team to look into the said aspects including the examination in respect of regularization of CSS employees. Thereafter, a notification was issued on 21.10.2024 by which the Page No.# 4/7 number of post proposed to be filled up by regularization as per the scheme, were directed to be identified as well as various other exercises were directed to be undertaken. 5. Thereafter, the learned Counsel submits that on 28.04.2025 after individually scrutinizing all the documents in respect of the employees under the Samagra Shiksha Mizoram, which includes other exercises also, the study team submitted a report to the Secretary and Hon’ble Minister, School Education Department for their kind consideration and the said report included various exercise to be undertaken in phase wise and also school wise. In the said report, the proposal for regularization of special teachers for children with special needs was also endorsed to the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (DP & AR) and that thereafter on 23.12.2025, after carefully examining the proposal given by the study team, the DR & AR had further asked for documents in respect of various teachers working under the CSS, Centrally Sponsored Scheme. She further submits that thereafter various exercises were undertaken. She also submits that the State Government was carefully looking into the aspect of regularization of the teachers working under the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan including the petitioners. 6. Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned Counsel for all the respondents however, submits that the said directions given by this Court as mentioned hereinabove were to be completed within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the order but the State Governments had not done anything pursuant to the said order and after more than a year had framed a scheme which was meant for benefit of the employees under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme and the same was not specific to the petitioners for whom the order was passed. He further states that in the affidavit filed by the Directorate of School Education on 22.08.2024 in the contempt proceedings, it was stated that although the petitioners have stated before the Court that as per meeting minutes of the cabinet 2024, scheme was not Page No.# 5/7 to be applied to those employees who had approached the Court, the same is applicable to the petitioners and that there was misconception that it will not be applicable to petitioners but the fact remains according to the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the scheme was not strictly applicable to them but to all the employees working under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme which was not the direction of this Court in its order dated 17.03.2023. He further submits that the specific direction by this Court was to consider regularization of the services of the members of the petitioner association against the existing the vacant post in the appropriate grade by taking into account experiences and training undergone by the teachers, but the said regularization was not done and neither the existing vacant post were identified by the respondents concerned. He further submits that the additional direction that was given was only in the alternative and in the alternative, it was directed that the State Respondents should sanction new post as SSA (Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan) Teachers by creating such cadre, which was also not done by the respondents concerned and as far as the framing of the scheme is concerned, the direction was only given as a liberty to the State Government to frame a scheme for further giving the terms and conditions for regularization. He, however, submits that the case placed by the Government Advocate was not in terms of the said order. 7. On consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel for all the parties, this Court finds the following: As has been stated above, the specific directions of this Court by order dated 17.03.2023 was to the effect that members of the petitioner association, who are working as Teachers under Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan should be considered for regularization against the existing vacant post of Government Teachers in appropriate grade in tune with the object of the Right to Education Act and it has only in the alternative that this Court had held that Government should sanction Page No.# 6/7 new post as SSA (Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan)Teachers by creating the respective cadre. The additional direction given by this Court was to frame a scheme for regularization of the teachers if the State Governments finds it fit and it was further directed that the exercise should be completed within a period of six months. However, it is seen that the State Government had not followed the directions within the time frame and after a period of more than one year from the date of passing of the judgment, had published a scheme formulated by them i.e. “The Government of Mizoram Regularization of Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) Employees Scheme 2024”. The name of the scheme itself suggest that the same is applicable to all the employees working under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme and it is not specifically meant for the petitioners, whereas the directions were given in respect of the petitioners by this Court. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the said scheme will also include the teachers i.e. the employees of the association who have approached this writ Court will also not suffice the requirement in the order dated 17.03.2023. The various other exercises conducted after the scheme has been framed and published, is also not in response to the direction given by this Court. The said exercises were conducted for all the employees under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme and the gamut of the entire exercise seems to be very large since there are six thousand and odd employees as has been stated under the said scheme. Further, the framing of the scheme was only given as a liberty to the State Respondents. The main direction was to consider regularization of the petitioners services. The prayer of the learned Counsel for the State Respondents is that they need more time to comply with the directions of this order is bizarre, in view of the fact that no concrete steps were taken as the petitioners are not considered for regularization of their services as has been ordered by this Court and now more than three years have elapsed from the date of the judgment and it is in the considered opinion of this Court that there Page No.# 7/7 can be no question of giving extension of time to comply with the said order. 8. As such, this Interlocutory Application stands disposed. However, the observations made in this order will have no effect on the consideration of the main contempt application. JUDGE Comparing Assistant