Michael Zothankhuma,J.:-- Heard Mr. Lalremtluanga, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. Pradhan, learned counsel for both the respondents. 2. The petitioner case is that she was appointed as Middle School Teacher on a fixed pay of Rs.5,500/- per month in Auxiliam Middle School vide Office Order No-9/2006 dated 27.11.2006 and posted in the School w.e.f. 27.12.2006. Thereafter, by a notification dated 02.03.2007 issued by the Education Officer (MS), Mara Autonomous District Council, the petitioner's service was regularized as Middle School Teacher in the scale of pay of Rs. 5,500-175-90007- per month w.e.f. 01.03.2007. 3. Thereafter, order dated 03.09.2007 was issued by the Education Officer, Mara Autonomous District Council which is to the following effect : "No.MADC.2/EDN/M/2006-2007/- In pursuance of Order under memo No. A. 1101 1/1/07 of 21.08.2007 the Executive Committee of the Mara Autonomous District Council is regretted to terminate Middle School Teachers listed in ANNEXURE-'A whose date of appointment order and date of joining were after 28. 1 1 .2006 (cut off date) with effect from issue of this order. One month existing salary will be paid to the terminated teachers as per Executive Committee decision." 4. The petitioner's name is at Sl. No. 3 at Annexure 'A' enclosed to the order dated 03.09.2007. 5. The petitioner thereafter, made representations to the respondents requesting re-instatement to earlier post as School teacher vide representations dated 05.02.2008, 18.10.2011 and 27.11 .2013. The petitioner has stated that in her representations that 5 (five) teachers who had been terminated along with her have been reinstated. The 5 (five) teachers names are : 1.Shri.J.Hasa 2. Shri. V. Vabemokhai 3. Shri. F.C. Haima 4. Shri. Lalnghakliana 5. Shri. Lalmuankima The further case in her representation is to the effect that the Cut off date of 28.11.2006 cannot be made applicable to her inasmuch as her appointment order was issued on 27.11.2006, i.e. prior to the Cut off date, though her joining date was w.e.f. 27.12.2006. 6. Mr. S. Pradhan, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that their being 7 (seven) years delay in filing the writ petition, the writ petitioner is liable to be dismissed due to laches. Secondly, the writ petition has not impleaded the District Council Affairs, Government of Mizoram as a party. The third point raised by Mr. 6. Mr. S. Pradhan, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that their being 7 (seven) years delay in filing the writ petition, the writ petitioner is liable to be dismissed due to laches. Secondly, the writ petition has not impleaded the District Council Affairs, Government of Mizoram as a party. The third point raised by Mr. S. Pradhan is that the petitioner's appointment order conies within the Cut off date, as such the petitioner can have no grievance against her termination order. 7. Regarding the question of delay there is no doubt that the petitioner has approached this Court after a lapse of many years. However, it is also not in dispute that the termination of the petitioner service has been done in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner having been regularized by the respondent on 02,03.2007, the respondent termination order dated 03.09,2007 is illegal as the principles of natural justice have been violated as no notice was issued to her prior to the termination order. 8. The impleadment of the District Council Affairs Department, Government of Mizoram is not necessary in the present case inasmuch as it had nothing to do with the appointment and regularization of the petitioner as Middle School Teacher. It also did not have any hand to play in respect of the impugned termination order dated 03,09.2007. Thus, the non-joinder of the District Council Affair Department does not prejudice the respondents in any manner whatsoever. 9. The question to whether the petitioner's appointment order comes within the Cut off date of 28.11.2006 has also to be considered. The appointment date of the petitioner's order is w.e.f. 27.12.2006, However, the appointment order dated 27.11.2006 is prior to the Cut off date i.e. 28.11.2006. A perusal of the termination order dated 03.09.2007 very clearly shows that the petitioner's appointment order is prior to the Cut off date while her date of joining is within the Cut off date. In that view of the matter, the question of whether the petitioner comes within the Cut off date or not cannot be the sole criteria for determining the present case in hand. The termination order dated 03.09.2007 no way indicates as to the reason for termination of the petitioner's service. It is settled law that every executive action has to be founded on reason. The termination order dated 03.09.2007 no way indicates as to the reason for termination of the petitioner's service. It is settled law that every executive action has to be founded on reason. However, the present termination order dated 03.09.2007 being devoid of any reason, this Court finds that the present termination order is arbitrary and cannot with-stand the scrutiny of article 14 of the Constitution. 10. After having considered the various points raised by the parties in the above case, I find that the petitioner's representations should have been considered by the respondents. Accordingly, I direct the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. The respondent Nos.1 & 2 shall consider the petitioner's representation within a period of 1 (one) month from receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 will also take into consideration the observations made by this Court while deciding the petitioner's representation. The representation shall be decided by the respondent by a speaking order and a copy of the same should be furnished to the petitioner. It is needless to say that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the decision of the respondents, she is at liberty to approach this Court again if so advised. 11. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No cost. of the 2nd party to approach the competent forum for redressal of their claim arising out of the terms of the agreement dated 02.09.2003. But the intervention of the Writ Court in such matter which can best be described as a contractual dispute, would not in my view, is justified in the instant case. 17. For the aforesaid discussion and reasons, this petition is found to devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No cost. -------