Page No.# 1/6 GAHC030003332026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/53/2026 Sh. Lalthlamuana and Anr. S/o Lalchungnunga R/o Maubawk, Aizawl District, Mizoram - 796001 2: Sh. Lalrinnghet VERSUS The State of Mizoram and 3 Ors. R/b the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Mizoram, Mizoram Secretariat, MINECO, Khatla, Aizawl - 796001 2:The Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram DP and Ar 3:The Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Public Health Engineering Department 4:The Engineer-in-Chief Public Health Engineering Departmen Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr C Lalramzauva Sr. Adv. Advocate for the Respondent : Addl. AG/GA, Mizoram for R 1-4 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NELSON SAILO O R D E R 10.09.2026 Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Stephen Lalbuatsaiha, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Additional Advocate General, Mizoram Page No.# 2/6 appearing for the respondents. 2. Brief facts of the case have been recorded in the order dated 19.05.2026 of this Court and the same is reproduced below for brevity. “Heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. J. Malsawmzuala Vanchhawng, learned counsel for the petitioners. The grievance of the two (2) petitioners are that although they have been engaged as Muster Roll (MR) employee on 22.02.1999 and 20.10.1999 respectively and their services utilized as Drivers, they have been placed at Serial Nos. 32 & 24 respectively by showing their date of initial engagement as 01.04.2007 & 19.12.2003. The respondent authorities came up with a reprovisional inter-se seniority list of provisional employees (drivers) under the Public Health Engineering Department vide Office Memorandum dated 02.09.2025, wherein, the petitioners were placed at Serial Nos. 32 & 24 respectively. An opportunity to submit a complaint against the said seniority fixation was given and the petitioners had also submitted their representation. Despite the same, a Final Inter-se Seniority List was published on 27.04.2026 without any changes in their position in the seniority list. Aggrieved, they are before this Court. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Senior Counsel, submits that certain queries were made by an RTI activist regarding the engagement and fixation of the seniority of Muster Roll Drivers under the PHE Department and the reply that was received was that the date of initial engagement as MR employee is to be treated as the date of official engagement under the Government. Further, the PHE Department does not have any designated Muster Roll Driver. He, therefore, submits that the petitioners having entered into service as Muster Roll Employees on 22.02.1999 & 20.10.1999 respectively, they could not have been shown as having entered on 01.04.2007 & 19.12.2003 in the Final Inter- se Seniority List. The learned Senior Counsel, therefore, submits that the impugned Seniority List should be interfered with by this Court by granting the relief sought for by the petitioners. The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the petitioners have come to learn from a reliable source that the process for regularizing Muster Roll Drivers is being initiated as per the Final Seniority list of Muster Roll Drivers and the top twelve (12) Drivers are being enlisted for consideration. He therefore submits that pending final consideration of the writ petition, an interim protection may be granted to the petitioners. Page No.# 3/6 In view of above, issue notice of motion, returnable by three (3) weeks. Mr. Samuel Vanlalhriata Chhangte, learned Additional Advocate General, Mizoram accepts notice on behalf of all the respondents. Notice is therefore complete. Having regard to the above projection made by the petitioners, it is hereby provided that if the respondents are proceeding with the process for regularization of the Muster Roll Drivers, they may do so but the same should not be given a finality without the leave of this Court. List the matter again after three (3) weeks.” 3. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit, wherein the stand taken in paragraph No.6 is as follows:- “That with regard to the statements made in paragraph No.10 of the Writ Petition, the answering Respondents denied to the said allegations. That the Attendance Roll vouchers relied upon by the petitioners merely establish that they were engaged as Muster Roll employees and cannot be treated as conclusive proof of engagement as Drivers. It is submitted that Shri Lalthlamuana was initially recorded under the category of Semi-Skilled Worker, whereas Driver falls under a higher skilled category. It is further submitted that the Government, Vide Office Memorandum dated 27.08.2018, specifically directed rationalization of skill categories and prohibited unauthorized upgrading of skill categories. Therefore, any claim of engagement in the Driver category must necessarily be supported by authentic departmental records. That it is further submitted that Shri Lalringheta obtained a valid Driving Licence only on 19.12.2003 and Shri Lalthlamuana obtained a valid Driving Licence only on 14.07.2004. In the absence of proof of possession of the requisite qualification prior thereto, the petitioners' claim of engagement as Muster Roll Drivers from 1999 is wholly unsupported.” 4. Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the stand taken by the respondents is only contrary to what has been stated in the reply to the RTI submitted by the petitioners. Referring to the query No.3 of the petitioners annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-8, learned senior counsel submits that the petitioners sought information as to what would be the criteria for calculating the seniority of Page No.# 4/6 Muster Roll employees, who have been assigned to drive vehicles from the initial time of engagement. He submits that the reply was that although there has been subsequent classification of skill based categories such as drivers, but for those initially engaged as Muster Roll employees and whose service has been utilized as drivers, their initial engagement as Muster Roll employee shall be treated as the date of their official engagement under the Government. Therefore, as the services of the petitioners having been utilized as drivers from the initial time of their engagement, their seniority position has to be much above the position where they are placed through the impugned re-provisional inter-se seniority list of provisional employees (Drivers) under the Public Health Engineering Department, 2025. 5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners referring to the said re- provisional inter-se seniority list annexed to the writ petition as Annexure- 9, submits that two persons appearing at Serial Nos. 9 and 12 have been shown to have been engaged as drivers on 21.05.2001 and 01.05.2002, respectively, but however, they obtained their driving license only on 27.10.2005 and 28.07.2004, respectively, which is later than the petitioners. Referring to paragraph No.6 of the counter affidavit, the learned senior counsel submits that according to the respondents themselves, the petitioners have secured their driving license on 19.12.2003 and 14.07.2004. Therefore, the petitioners are only senior to the two individuals at Serial Nos. 9 and 12 in the re-provisional inter-se seniority list. 6. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and perused the materials available on record. Page No.# 5/6 7. It is seen from the stand taken at paragraph No.6 of the counter affidavit that according to the respondents, the petitioners are indeed engaged as Muster Roll employees, but in the absence of any conclusive proof of their engagement as drivers, it cannot be said that they are entitled to be treated as drivers from the dates earlier then what has been reflected in the impugned re-provisional inter-se seniority list, wherein the dates of their initial engagement as drivers has been shown as 19.02.2003 and 01.04.2007, respectively. From the stand taken by the respondents, it is noticed that the respondents have not totally denied the claim of the petitioners about their engagement as drivers from the date prior to what has been reflected in the seniority list. All that they have stated is that their claim cannot be entertained in absence of any conclusive proof of their engagement as drivers prior to the dates shown in the seniority list. 8. Under the facts and circumstances and importantly, having regard to what has been pointed out by the learned senior counsel in respect of the reply given to the RTI query and also the dates on which the driving license were issued to the two persons appearing at Serial Nos. 9 and 12 of the re-provisional inter-se seniority list, this Court is of the considered view that the matter of inclusion of the petitioners for regularization be re- considered by the respondent authorities by giving the petitioners an opportunity to stake their claim by filing appropriate representation with supporting documents, if any. 9. In view of above, the petitioners shall file their respective representations along with supporting documents, if any, before the Engineer-in-Chief, Public Health Engineering Department (respondent No.4) within a period of 07(seven) days from today. The respondent No.4 Page No.# 6/6 upon receipt of the representations, shall consider the same and give the petitioners an opportunity of hearing and thereafter, take a decision in the matter within a period of one week thereafter by passing a reasoned and a speaking order. Until such an order is passed at by the respondent No.4, the interim order passed earlier on 19.05.2026 shall remain in force. 10. With the above observations and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant