Research › Browse › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 5 (GAU)

Lalengmawia v. State of Mizoram and Ors.

1996-01-22

H.K.SEMA

body1996
Heard Mr. Sailo, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. KP Pathak, learned Assistant Advocate General for the respondents. 2. The dispute relates to the regularisation of the service of Principal and Lecturers of the Saitual College wef 1.4.1993. 3. At the outset, Mr. Pathak raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that the affidavit has not been sworn in by competent person. Mr. Pathak has drawn my attention to the affidavit at page 9 and makes a submission that the perosn who is not authorised by other petitioner is not competent to swear affidavit on behalf of the other petitioners inasmuch as this petition has been preferred by eight petitioners in number. Mr. Pathak is right for saying because I find in para 9 of the petition that the affidavit has been sworn in by only one petitioner on behalf of all other petitioners without valid authorisation. Be that as it may, even otherwise, there is no merit in this writ petition and this petition can be dismissed even on merit. 4. Petitioners were working as Principal and Lecturers at Saitual College. The Saitual College is deficit college. Departmental Promotion Committee held its meeting on 21.4.93 for considering the regularisation of the service of the petitioners. The DPC was constituted with the following members : 1. Pu Lallunghnema, Commissioner, Education & Human Resources Depptt Chairman 2. Dr. RS Wangu, NEHU Subject Expert 3. Dr. H. Lallungmuana, Pachhunga Univ. College Subject Expert 4. Pu Lalawia, Director Higher & Technical Edn Member/Secretary 5. Pu Lalziramawia Member& President, Governing Body, Saitual College. 5. The DPC in its meeting held on 21.4.93 has recommended for regularisation of the Principals and Lecturers wef 1.4.93. Pursuant to the recommendation of the DPC, the service of the petitioners has been regularised wef 1st April, 1993 by an order dated 13th May, 1993. However, by impugned order dated 7.2.94, the regularisatior of the service of the petitioners as Lecturers have been cancelled wef 1.2.94 as the proceeding of DPC held on 21.4.93 was null and void in the absence of legally constituted DPC as per the provisions of Mizoram Aided College Employees Rules, 1990 (hereinafter the Rules) which comes into force on 10.12.90. Being aggrieved, this petition has been preferred. 6. The Government of Mizoram has framed Rules called the Mizoram Aided College Employees Rules, 1990. Being aggrieved, this petition has been preferred. 6. The Government of Mizoram has framed Rules called the Mizoram Aided College Employees Rules, 1990. The Rules was made effective from 10.12.90. Rule 3(1) of the Rules deals with Selection Board/Committee to consider the appointment of Principals, Vice Principals, Lecturers etc consisting of the following members, namely : (a) Secretary, Education, Mizoram Chairman (b) Director of Higher Education Member/Secretary. (c) President, Governing Body of the Concerned College. Member. (d) One Educationist nominated by the Govt Member. (e) Joint Director of Higher Education, Mizoram Member. (f) Principal of the concerned College Co-opted Member. 7. The above being the provisions of the rule, admittedly, the Committee constituted and held its DPC meeting on 21.4.93 recommending the case of the petitioners for regularisation was not in accordance with the Rules. The rules is statutory rules, and therefore, unless the body is constituted in consonance with the Rules, it will be non-est and any proceedings thereafter shall be null and void. The Government was therefore right in issuing the impugned order dated 7.2.94 declaring the proceeding of the DPC held on 21.4.93 as null and void. 8. It must be grasped that in a catena of decision of this Court as well as by the Apex Court, we emphasized and re-emphasizes that the rules are framed to be followed and not to be violated. In the instant case, the DPC constituted for the meeting held on 21.4.93 is not in accordance with the rules, and therefore, the provision of the rules, particularly Rule 3(1) of the rules has been violated. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 10. Despite of the dismissal of the writ petition, it is submitted by Mr. Sailo that, pursuant to the aforesaid recommendation, the service of the petitioner is continued till today. The respondent Government is directed to constitute DPC in accordance with the Rule 3 (1) of the Rules within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. A fresh DPC constituted in accordance with the rules, shall examine the case of the petitioners and other eligible candidates and made recommendation. Till such DPC is constituted and the candidates recommended, the petitioners shall be allowed the continue in their respective posts. Subject to the aforesaid observation, the petition is dismissed. A fresh DPC constituted in accordance with the rules, shall examine the case of the petitioners and other eligible candidates and made recommendation. Till such DPC is constituted and the candidates recommended, the petitioners shall be allowed the continue in their respective posts. Subject to the aforesaid observation, the petition is dismissed. Interim order if any stands vacated.