L.S. Jamir, J. -- Heard Mr. N. Sailo, learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. Dinari T. Azyu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents. 2. Mr. N. Sailo, learned senior counsel submits that the petitioner was appointed temporarily by a temporary appointment Order dated 31.8.2000 by the Managing Board of the Modern English Higher Secondary School, Aizawl as Plus Two Teacher (Post Graduate Teacher) in the said school. Thereafter, the District Education Officer, Aizawl District issued an order dated 31.08.2000 approving the appointment order of the petitioner w.e.f. 31.8.2000. By a letter dated 11.10.2000, the Director of School Education, Mizoram wrote to the Chairman, Managing Board Committee, Modern English Higher Secondary School, Aizawl and others, requesting to extend the period of engagement of the Post Graduate Teachers in their School for another period of 60 days. In the Annexure-II appended to the said letter, the name of the petitioner appeared at Serial No. 10 and his subject was shown as Sociology. Such revalidation of temporary engagement of the petitioner was done by order dated 19.10.2000. He also submits that by a letter dated 12.7.2001 written by the Under Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Education & Human Resource Development to the Director of School Education (respondent No. 5), the approval of the Government was conveyed for engagement of 98 nos. of Post Graduate Teacher on contract basis w.e.f. 2.5.2001 to 4.4.2002. The said approval was conveyed after obtaining the concurrence of the Finance Department. Consequently, the respondent No. 5 by order dated 19.7.2001 the persons listed in the Annexure enclosed thereto as Post Graduate Teacher on contract basis for a period of 11 (eleven) months w.e.f. 2.5.2001 to 4.4.2002. In the Annexure enclosed to the said order, the name of the petitioner again appeared at Serial No. 10. Such approvals of the Government for extension of engagement of Post Graduate Teacher after taking the concurrence of Finance Department was issued by the Department of Education and Human Resource Development from time to time. Upon such approvals being given by the Government, the respondent No. 5 has been issuing orders extending the period of the contract teachers at various schools. Upon such approvals being given by the Government, the respondent No. 5 has been issuing orders extending the period of the contract teachers at various schools. The name of the petitioner has been consistently appearing in the annexure enclosed to such extension order and his name is shown against the Modern English Higher Secondary School, Aizawl. Such approval of the Government were given by communications dated 15.5.2002, 24.3.2003, 20.1.2004, 9.5.2005, 3.4.2007 etc. 3. Mr. N. Sailo, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner at this stage submits that the State respondents has framed Recruitment Rules known as the Mizoram Education and Human Resources Development (Group ‘B’ posts) Recruitment Rules, 1996 (Hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1996) for the post of Post Graduate Teacher. The educational qualification prescribed therein was at least Second Class Master Degree from a recognized University preferably with B.T/B.Ed besides having working knowledge of Mizo language upto Middle School standard. This Rules of 1996 was amended by the Mizoram Education and Human Resource Development Department (Group ‘B’ posts) Recruitment (First Amendment) Rules, 2004 (Hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2004). The said amendment Rules of 2004 was published in the Mizoram Gazette on 24.2.2005. Under the amendment Rules of 2004, the minimum educational qualification was made as Second Class Master Degree from the recognized University in the relevant subject with B.Ed or its equivalent degree or two years integrated M.Sc. Ed. Course or an equivalent course. He also submits that the State respondents by a notification dated 23.6.2000 was pleased to upgrade 5 (five) High Schools into the Higher Secondary School for Arts stream from the academic session of the year 2000. By the said notification dated 23.6.2000, the Modern English School, Aizawl was also upgraded into Higher Secondary School. The petitioner being found fit and qualified was thereafter appointed and his service was extended from time to time as already indicated hereinabove. 4. Mr. N. Sailo, learned senior counsel submits that the State respondents has also formulated a scheme for regularizing its contract employee known as the Government of Mizoram Regularisation of Contract Employees Scheme, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme of 2008). The said scheme of 2008 was amended by a notification dated 19.10.2011 whereby the number of post for regularization was restricted to 20 per cent of the sanctioned post in the direct recruitment quota. The said scheme of 2008 was amended by a notification dated 19.10.2011 whereby the number of post for regularization was restricted to 20 per cent of the sanctioned post in the direct recruitment quota. He also submits that after the Scheme of 2008, the Director of School Education had issued an order dated 28.5.2008 regularizing 92 (ninety two) contract Lecturers from various schools including that of the Modern English Higher Secondary School, Aizawl w.e.f. 1.3.2008 on the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee for the post of Group ‘B’ (Non-Gazetted). In the order, it was also stipulated that Lecturers working in Government Higher Secondary School will remain in their present places of posting till such time their new place of posting is issued by the Department and they will draw their pay and allowances from the DEOs concerned. Further stipulation was also made for those who are working in Mission School that they will continue to work under their respective Mission Board till such time arrangement for their replacement is made by the competent authority. However, they will draw their pay and allowances from their DEOs concerned. While considering the case of the aforesaid 92(ninety two) contract Lecturers, the case of the petitioner was not considered without citing any reasons though he was equally circumstanced with those lecturers. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the State respondents after formulating the Scheme of 2008, had considered regularization of contract Lecturers of Higher Secondary School in the month of February, 2011 who were working on contract basis. However, the case of the petitioner was not taken into consideration by the DPC without citing any reason. In the meantime, by a communication dated 5.7.2012, the Chairman and the Secretary of the School Managing Board of Modern English Higher Secondary School had written to the Department of School Education through the Minister in charge of School Education Department requesting for regularisation of the petitioner along with 8 (eight) Lecturers. In the said communication dated 5.7.2012, it was also mentioned that 3 (three) other persons who are appointed by the School Managing Board were regularized in the year 2008. 5. Mr. In the said communication dated 5.7.2012, it was also mentioned that 3 (three) other persons who are appointed by the School Managing Board were regularized in the year 2008. 5. Mr. N. Sailo, learned senior counsel submits that while the colleague of the petitioner who are appointed in the year 2000 have already been regularized in the year 2008, the petitioner is still continuing on contract basis and on fixed pay and the same therefore amounts to discrimination. Certain other contract Lecturers who are appointed latter to the petitioner were also regularized on the recommendation of the DPC. He has particularly cited the name of one Smt. H. Zomawii. He also submits that the Modern English Higher Secondary School in which the petitioner is presently working in a Deficit Higher Secondary School and is covered by the Mizoram Aided School (Recurring and Non-Recurring Grants-in-Aid) Rules, 1990. The appointment of the petitioner had the approval of the State Government through the School Education Department and the petitioner had also executed a Contract Agreement Deed which had been valid till the year 2008. Therefore, there is no reason why the petitioner had to be excluded from the preview of the DPC for consideration of his case for regularization. He, therefore submits that there has been blatant miscarriage of justice and the respondents should be given a direction to consider the case of the petitioner for regularization. 6. Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents has submitted that the case of the petitioner is slightly different from those who have been regularized, inasmuch as the petitioner was initially appointed by the Managing Board of Modern English Higher Secondary School and his engagement period was subsequently extended by the department, whereas the case of the other Lecturers who were regularized were appointed initially as Post Graduate Teacher under the direction of the department. She also submits that the Scheme of 2008 came into force w.e.f. 10.10.2008 and that none of the contract Lecturers under Deficit Mission School were regularized under the said Scheme. She also submits that the Scheme of 2008 came into force w.e.f. 10.10.2008 and that none of the contract Lecturers under Deficit Mission School were regularized under the said Scheme. She also submits that the contract employees under the Deficit Mission Scheme are not entitled to claim regularization of their service as they are performing their duties under the control and superintendence of the Managing Committee concerned and the Government does not interfere in their internal administration though their salaries are borne by the department in the form of Grant-in-Aid. She also submits that the said person namely, Smt. H. Zomawii was appointed on contract basis as stop gap arrangement in the Modern English Higher Secondary School on the direction of the department and she was therefore later regularized by the Government and posted in other Government Higher Secondary School prior to introduction of the Scheme of 2008. As the petitioner was appointed by the Managing Board, Modern English Higher Secondary School without prior approval or the recommendation of the department, he cannot be included in the selected list for engagement as Post Graduate Teacher in Modern English Higher Secondary School. 7. I have considered the submissions forwarded by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties. 8. After the appointment of the petitioner in the year 2000 by the Managing Board by order dated 31.08.2000, the District Education Officer had given approval of the same by order dated 31.8.2000. Thereafter, by various letters and orders, it is seen that the Government has conveyed its approval after taking the concurrence of the Finance Department for continuing the services of the petitioner on contract basis. The stand of the Government that the petitioner was appointed by the Managing Board of Modern English Higher Secondary School without prior approval or recommendation of the department cannot be accepted by this Court inasmuch as from the date of appointment the DEO concerned had given approval. Thereafter, further extension of the engagement period of the petitioner was made on the basis of the approval given by the Government with the concurrence of the Finance Department. From the order dated 28.5.2008 issued by the respondent No. 5, it is seen that the person at Serial Nos. 21, 32, 39, 41, 44, 47, 52 and 69 are all from the Modern English Higher Secondary School, Aizawl. From the order dated 28.5.2008 issued by the respondent No. 5, it is seen that the person at Serial Nos. 21, 32, 39, 41, 44, 47, 52 and 69 are all from the Modern English Higher Secondary School, Aizawl. While such Lecturers could be considered for regularization by the DPC, no explanation has been given as to why the petitioner has been singled out for non-consideration. Further, by the said order dated 28.5.2008, it is seen that those contract Lecturers working in Mission Schools were also regularized. The stand of the Government taken at paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit that the ownership and responsibilities of the school administration lies upon the Managing Committee of the School under the supervision of the Salvation Army which is one of the Church denomination in Mizoram cannot be also accepted as the same is contrary to the stipulations made in the Order dated 28.5.2008. 9. The petitioner has been continuing as contract Lecturer in the Modern English Higher Secondary School only on the basis of approval given by the Government for further continuation and therefore the State respondents at this stage cannot take a U-turn to say that the appointment of the petitioner did not have the approval/recommendation of the department. 10. Under such circumstances, this Court has no hesitation but to issue a direction to the respondents more particularly, respondent Nos. 2 and 5 to forthwith takes step for placing the case of the petitioner before the Departmental Promotion Committee for consideration of his case for regularization as has been done for other similarly situated person. Such exercise should be completed at the earliest but not later than 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of the true copy of the order of this Court by the respondent Nos. 2 and 5. The petitioner is also given liberty to produce a certified true copy of the order of this Court to the respondent Nos. 2 and 5. 11. With the above observation and direction, this writ petition is allowed. 12. No cost.