JUDGMENT : KH. NOBIN SINGH, J. 1. Heard Shri A. Bimol, the learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Shri H. Prabirkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri H. Devendra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents. 2. By the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuing a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned orders dated 11.07.2001, 01.08.2001, 03.08.2001 and 21.08.2001 issued by the State Government. 3.1. According to the petitioner, she was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on ad-hoc basis at Somdal NK High School for a period of three months in the vacancy caused by the retirement of Shri Matuiching, Assistant Teacher vide order dated 14.05.1997 issued by the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur. The post of Assistant Teacher was later re-designated as the Primary Teacher vide order dated 01.02.1998 of the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur. The ad-hoc service of the petitioner was extended from time to time till 30.04.1999 and even thereafter, she continued to serve at the said school as there was acute shortage of teaching staff for which the Principal of the school wrote a letter dated 24.08.1999 to the Director of Education (S) who, in turn, wrote a letter to the Commissioner (Education/S) for obtaining Government decision to the extension of the ad-hoc service of the petitioner w.e.f. 01.05.1999. When no response was received from the Government and in particular, from the Director of Education (S), the Principal of the school addressed a letter dated 24.04.2000 to the Director of Education (S) for extending the term of ad-hoc service of the petitioner in view of the fact that the Somdal NK High School which is in short of teaching staff, was in need of her service and she had been serving till then. 3.2. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, she was constrained to file a writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 600 of 2000 wherein the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court was pleased to pass an order dated 23.05.2000, the operative portion of which is as under - "In the result, this petition is disposed of with the direction that the writ petitioner shall be allowed to continue to serve as Asstt. Teacher at the same school until the post held by her is filled up on regular basis. Teacher at the same school until the post held by her is filled up on regular basis. In this regard necessary order of extension shall be issued by the competent authority not later than on month from the date of receipt of this order. Arrear pay and allowances shall also be released to the writ petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter, the writ petitioner shall be paid regular monthly pay and allowances as long as she serves." Since this order has not been challenged by anyone, it has attained its finality. When the respondents failed to comply with the said order, the petitioner had to file a contempt petition being Cont. Case (C) No. 230 of 2000 and only after the receipt of a notice in the said contempt case, the respondent No.1 conveyed the approval for extension of the petitioner's ad-hoc service from 01.05.1999 to 31.07.2001. In pursuance thereof, the respondent No. 2 issued an order dated 02.08.2001 extending the ad-hoc service of the petitioner for the period mentioned above. 3.3. On the next day i.e., 03.08.2001 after the said order dated 02.08.2001 having been issued, the respondent No. 1 issued another order to the effect that the posts of Primary Teacher at Somdal NK High School not being held on regular basis or lying vacant had ceased to exist and it would imply that such posts held on ad-hoc basis stood automatically abolished. Although the said order was referable to the petitioner, no copy thereof was served upon her and she came to know about it only on 24.09.2001. Surprisingly, on 26.09.2001 the Secretary (Education/S), the respondent No.1 issued an order extending the appointment of 132 ad-hoc primary teachers working in different schools upto 31.08.2001 including two primary teachers of the Somdal NK High School who were appointed after the initial appointment of the petitioner but the ad-hoc service of the petitioner was not extended in an unreasonable and discriminatory manner so as to take vengeance against the petitioner for having filed the contempt case. The said order dated 03.08.2001 was issued in a purported continuance of the order dated 11.07.2001 wherein it has been stated that the posts occupied by the ad-hoc/ in-charge arrangements should stand abolished with immediate effect with the exceptions to the cases involving court's directions and accordingly, the Corrigendum dated 01.08.2001 was issued deleting the expression "with the exceptions to the cases involving court's directions" which came to be withdrawn later on 04.12.2001. On 16.08.2001 the respondent No. 2 informed the Deputy Secretary (School Education) that if the vacancies were not filled up timely, the teaching in the school was found to have been badly affected and this would automatically affect the quality education. Unmindful about the contents of the said letter dated 16.08.2001, the respondent No. 1 issued an order dated 21.08.2001 reducing 928 (nine hundred and twenty eight) posts of Primary Teachers in the Education Department (S) lying vacant or not being held on regular basis by abolishing the same as the first phase of down-sizing. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid actions of the respondents, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the inter-alia grounds that the impugned orders are bad in law for the reason that the same are repugnant to the court's order dated 23.05.2000; that while issuing the impugned orders, the respondents have not applied their mind to the provisions of the free and compulsory education for all children below 14 years of age as laid down in Article 45 of the Constitution; that the invidious discrimination has been meted out to the petitioner by not extending her ad-hoc appointment after 31.07.2001 while extending the same to the other persons who are similarly situated with her; that the respondent No.1 has acted malafide in obtaining and conveying the order of the Government abolishing the permanent posts held by the petitioner for the reason that the filing of a contempt petition had annoyed him and that the financial problem or the economic and austerity measures cannot stand on the way of implementation and advancement of state policy. 4. 4. The instant writ petition is contested by the respondents by way of an affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondent No.1 and the stand as indicated therein is that there is nothing on record to show that due process of law has been followed while the petitioner was being appointed as Assistant Teacher on ad-hoc. No further extension was given to her, as her service was no longer required by the State Government. To tackle the financial crisis, many posts had to be abolished by the State Government by way of an austerity measure including the posts held by the petitioner. The State Government and the Directorate of Education (S) have no record of having issued ad-hoc appointment orders in favour of the two persons who are alleged to be similarly situated, leave alone the payment of pay and allowance, as contended by the petitioner. It is the prerogative of the State Government either to create or abolish posts and moreover, the impugned order cannot be challenged without challenging the order dated 04.05.2001. 5. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner filed an additional affidavit, incorporating therein certain facts which she came to know later, wherein it has been stated that the corrigendum dated 01.08.2001 had been withdrawn on 04.12.2001. The Principal of the Somdal N.K. High School addressed a letter dated 15.06.2005 to the Director of Education (S) informing that the petitioner was rendering her service due to shortage of teaching staff and on the basis of the duty certificate issued by the Principal, the Commissioner of Education (S), Government of Manipur issued an order extending her ad-hoc service w.e.f. 01.08.2001 to 31.01.2002. On 28.12.2016 the Director of Education(S) issued a Notification notifying that a Class-III DPC be held for regularisation of as many as 502 ad-hoc employees including the petitioner. On 28.12.2016 the Director of Education(S) issued a Notification notifying that a Class-III DPC be held for regularisation of as many as 502 ad-hoc employees including the petitioner. In reply to the said additional affidavit, an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents wherein it has been stated that the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court vide its order dated 23.05.2000 never directed that the post held by the petitioner be not abolished and the interim order dated 01.10.2001 passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the present case by which the respondents were directed to allow the petitioner to continue to serve, came to be challenged by way of an appeal being W.A. No. 42 of 2002 before the Division Bench which allowed the same by setting aside the interim order dated 01.10.2001. By referring to the Notification dated 09.08.1991, it has been stated that the abolition of the posts held by the petitioner was neither in contradictory to the Order dated 11.07.2001 nor was it in violation of the High Court's order. The letter of the Principal was in violation of the OM dated 04.05.2001 by which the authorities concerned were instructed not to issue certificates to the effect that the ad-hoc employees were continuing in their services after the expiry of the term of service. After the expiry of the term of ad-hoc service and the abolition of the post, the petitioner had no right to continue in service. The extension of ad-hoc services of the petitioner vide order dated 15.11.2005 from 01.08.2001 to 31.02.2002 was due to bonafide mistake as a result of lack of proper verification while the proposal being submitted by the Director of Education (S). As regards the proposal for regularisation of 502 ad-hoc employees including that of the petitioner, the same was placed before the Cabinet and as per the decision of the Cabinet, although a Special Class-III DPC was constituted vide order dated 27.12.2016, the State Government is yet to take a decision, in the matter, to go ahead with the DPC. 6. As regards the proposal for regularisation of 502 ad-hoc employees including that of the petitioner, the same was placed before the Cabinet and as per the decision of the Cabinet, although a Special Class-III DPC was constituted vide order dated 27.12.2016, the State Government is yet to take a decision, in the matter, to go ahead with the DPC. 6. In the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, it has been stated that as per the order dated 11.07.2001, the posts were to be abolished subject to the exception mentioned therein and since the Hon'ble Court's order was to continue the ad-hoc services of the petitioner till the same being filled up on regular basis, the post held by the petitioner could not be abolished and the Division bench while passing the order dated 23.01.2003, did not make any observation on merit. In the order dated 11.07.2001 issued by the Finance Department, no post of Primary Teacher was included nor was it identified for abolition as a policy for down-sizing/ right sizing of the Departments. The posts of Under Graduate Teacher and Primary Teacher are different from the post of Matriculate Teacher and they were not upgraded from the post vacated by the Under Matriculate and Matriculate Teachers as alleged by the respondent No.1, as they were created under different orders issued by the State Government. The impugned orders dated 03.08.2001 and 21.08.2001 abolishing the post of Primary Teachers which are not included in the list of posts to be abolished under order dated 11.07.2001, are illegal and not sustainable in law. 7. Based on the averments made in the petition as well as the additional and rejoinder affidavits, it has been submitted by Shri A. Bimol, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the abolition of the post held by the petitioner on ad-hoc basis without the same being covered by the order dated 11.07.2001, is bad in law and moreover, since the act of not extending the ad-hoc service of the petitioner while that of others who are similarly situated, being extended, is high discriminatory and unreasonable being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In view of the fact that the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court has passed an order 23.05.2000, the case of the petitioner will come under the exception as mentioned in the order dated 11.07.2001. In view of the fact that the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court has passed an order 23.05.2000, the case of the petitioner will come under the exception as mentioned in the order dated 11.07.2001. He has relied upon various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and in particular, Dipak Babaria v. State of Gujarat, (2014) 3 SCC 502 ; State of Punjab v. Bandeep Singh, (2016) 1 SCC 724 and T.P. Senkumar v. Union of India, (2017) 6 SCC 801 to content that the Government must defend its action on the basis of the order that it has passed and it cannot improve its stand by filing subsequent affidavits and cannot be permitted to travel beyond the stand adopted and expressed by it in the impugned action. In other words, when an order is passed in exercise of a statutory power on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons mentioned in the order and those reasons cannot be supplemented by other reasons through an affidavit or otherwise. On the other hand, Shri H. Devendra, the learned Government Advocate has submitted that it is the prerogative of the State Government either to abolish or create a post and since the post held by the petitioner has been abolished, she has no right to claim continuing in service. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed in State of Haryana v. Shri Des Raj Sangar & anr, (1976) 2 SCC 844 wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court: "7. Whether a post should be retained or abolished is essentially a matter for the Government to decide. As long as such decision of the Government is taken in good faith, the same cannot be set aside by the court. It is not open to the court to go behind the wisdom of the decision and substitute its own opinion for that of the Government on the point as to whether a post should or should not be abolished. The decision to abolish the post should, however, as already mentioned, be taken in good faith and be not used as a cloak or pretence to terminate the services of a person holding that post. The decision to abolish the post should, however, as already mentioned, be taken in good faith and be not used as a cloak or pretence to terminate the services of a person holding that post. In case it is found on consideration of the facts of a case that the abolition of the post was only a device to terminate the services of an employee, the abolition of the post would suffer from a serious infirmity and would be liable to be set aside. The termination of a post in good faith and the consequent termination of the services of the incumbent of that post would not attract Article 311. In M. Ramanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala Ray, C.J. speaking for the Constitution Bench of this Court observed: [SCC p. 657: SCC (L&S) p. 567, para 23] "A post may be abolished in good faith. The order abolishing the post may lose its effective character if it is established to have been made arbitrarily, mala fide or as a mask of some penal action within the meaning of Article 311(2)." It was further observed: [SCC p. 660: SCC (L&S) p. 570, para 36] "The abolition of post may have the consequence of termination of service of a Government servant. Such termination is not dismissal or removal within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution. The opportunity of showing cause against the proposed penalty of dismissal or removal does not therefore arise in the case of abolition of post. The abolition of post is not a personal penalty against the Government servant. The abolition of post is an executive policy decision. Whether after abolition of the post, the Government servant who was holding the post would or could be offered any employment under the State would therefore be a matter of policy decision of the Government because the abolition of post does not confer on the person holding the abolished post any right to hold the post." 8. The issue involved herein relates to the interpretation of the directions contained in the order dated 23.05.2000 passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in WP (C) No. 600 of 2000 and in particular, the direction "in the result, this petition is disposed of with the direction that the writ petitioner shall be allowed to continue to serve as Asstt. The issue involved herein relates to the interpretation of the directions contained in the order dated 23.05.2000 passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in WP (C) No. 600 of 2000 and in particular, the direction "in the result, this petition is disposed of with the direction that the writ petitioner shall be allowed to continue to serve as Asstt. Teacher at the same school until the post held by her is filled on regular basis" and the order dated 11.07.2001 issued by the Finance Department. It is true that it is nowhere observed in the court's order that the post held by the petitioner cannot be abolished by the State Government but the said order ought to be understood with reference to the background on the basis of which it has been passed. On perusal of the order dated 23.05.2000, it is seen that the said direction has been given on two points-one, the interest of the student community is to be taken care of and two, the post held by the petitioner is a clear vacancy caused by the retirement of an incumbent. It may be noted that the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court was not, at the time of passing the order dated 23.05.2000, aware of the fact that the order dated 11.07.2001 would be issued by the State Government in the near future. No material was placed on record to show any indication about such a policy decision being taken by the State Government and had such an indication being shown to by the State Government at the time of passing the order, the court's order would have been different. But the fact remains that the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court appears to have passed the order on the footing that the post held by the petitioner being a clear vacant post, will be filled up on regular basis at some day in the future. According to the learned Government Advocate, this order dated 23.05.2000 has been rendered non est on the ground that an interim order dated 01.10.2001 passed in the similar line, in the present case, has been set aside by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court vide its order dated 23.01.2003 in WA No.42 of 2002. According to the learned Government Advocate, this order dated 23.05.2000 has been rendered non est on the ground that an interim order dated 01.10.2001 passed in the similar line, in the present case, has been set aside by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court vide its order dated 23.01.2003 in WA No.42 of 2002. His contention appears to be incorrect and not convincing for the reason that the said order dated 23.05.2000 has not been challenged by anyone resulting in the attainment of its finality. Coming to the order dated 11.07.2001 issued by the Finance Department, it states that the Committee has decided that the down-sizing/ right-sizing of the Department, in the form of reduction of number of posts and abolition of posts as the case may be, shall be as in the annexure and this shall take effect in the manner as stated in para 5 thereof and so far as the posts so occupied by ad-hoc/ in-charge arrangement are concerned, they shall also stand abolished with immediate effect with the exception to the cases involving court's directions. Three things are contemplated in the order dated 11.07.2001-one, the Committee has taken a decision to reduce the number of posts as well as to abolish certain posts; two, the reduction and abolition of posts shall be as per the annexure meaning thereby that only the posts as mentioned in the annexure shall be abolished and three, the reduction and abolition of posts will not apply to cases where the court's directions are involved. The third one namely the expression "with the exception to the cases involving court's directions" is relevant for the present case. What does the expression mean? It simply talks about a direction involved in a case and it does not specify the nature and kind of direction which will come within ambit of the said expression. In other words, the expression cannot be said to mean only a direction which has prohibited the State Government from abolishing the posts. Moreover, the State Government has not produced any sample direction which is intended to mean only the direction as contemplated in the order dated 11.07.2001. In other words, the expression cannot be said to mean only a direction which has prohibited the State Government from abolishing the posts. Moreover, the State Government has not produced any sample direction which is intended to mean only the direction as contemplated in the order dated 11.07.2001. In the absence of any specific direction, the expression "court's direction" is to be understood in its plain language and meaning and it will, therefore, mean any kind of direction given by a court in respect of a case relating to the appointment on ad-hoc basis. Therefore, the order dated 23.05.2000 passed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court will come within the expression "court's directions" as contained in the Government order dated 11.07.2001 and consequently, the case of the petitioner will fall under the exception. 9. The order dated 03.08.2001, impugned herein, was issued stating therein that the post of primary teacher in Somdal NK High School not being held on regular basis has ceased to exist with the implication that such post held on ad-hoc basis stands automatically abolished. It may be noted that this order has been issued specifically only in respect of the Somdal NK High School where the petitioner was/ is serving as a primary teacher on ad-hoc basis and moreover, the said order is shown to have been issued in pursuance of the order dated 11.07.2001. It may further be noted that it is nowhere mentioned in the order dated 11.07.2001 that such an order be issued only in respect of the Somdal NK High School. Admittedly, as an austerity measure, the said order dated 11.07.2001 has been issued with a view to implement the decision taken by the Committee which has decided to reduce the number of posts and also to abolish certain posts as detailed in the annexure wherein the post of primary teacher is not included at all in respect of the Department of Education. Therefore, there is a considerable force and merit in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the said order dated 03.08.2001 has been issued in order to harass the petitioner for two reasons-one, this order has been issued only in respect of the Somdal NK High School and two, the post of primary teacher in Somdal NK High School is not included in the list of posts to be abolished vide order dated 11.07.2001. His contention is further substantiated by the fact that the respondent No.1 issued another dated 26.09.2001 by which the ad-hoc services of as many as 132 primary teachers were extended upto 31.08.2001 including that of two primary teachers working on ad-hoc at Somdal NK High School but the name of the petitioner appears to have been left out deliberately. As has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cases relied upon by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, the validity of an order must be judged by the reasons mentioned therein. In the case in hand, since the order dated 11.07.2001 has no application except under its exception, the order dated 03.08.2001 can be said to have been issued contrary to the order dated 11.07.2001 and is accordingly, bad in law. The contention of the learned Government Advocate has no force at all. It is true that it is normally the prerogative of the State Government to abolish a post. But in the present case, while taking a policy decision vide order dated 11.07.2001 towards reduction and abolition of posts, an exception has been curved out to the effect that it will not apply to cases where the court's directions are involved. Since the case of the petitioner falls under the exception, the post held by her ought not to have been abolished by the State Government and she ought to have been allowed to continue on ad-hoc service till the post is filled up on regular basis in terms of the court's order dated 23.05.2000. Similar is the case with the order dated 21.08.2001 wherein it has been stated that in pursuance of the order dated 11.07.2001, 928 posts of primary teachers have been abolished but the details have not been provided therein except the total number of posts to be abolished in district-wise. As has been stated hereinabove, the post of primary teacher is not included in the lists of posts to be abolished as detailed in the annexure. Moreover, it is surprising to note that after about four years, the Commissioner, Education (S), Government of Manipur issued an order dated 15.11.2005 extending the ad-hoc services of 69 primary teachers including that of the petitioner and other primary teachers of Somdal NK High School for the period shown against their names. Moreover, it is surprising to note that after about four years, the Commissioner, Education (S), Government of Manipur issued an order dated 15.11.2005 extending the ad-hoc services of 69 primary teachers including that of the petitioner and other primary teachers of Somdal NK High School for the period shown against their names. However, an attempt has been made by the State Government in their affidavit by stating that the extension of ad-hoc service of the petitioner vide order 15.11.2005 was a mistake due to the lack of communication. This attempt appears to be an after thought, and not permissible in law, for the reason that no corrigendum or for that matter, no order has been issued to rectify the alleged mistake. Over and above and in the recent past, the Director of Education (S), Government of Manipur issued a Notification dated 28.12.2016 informing that a Class-III DPC be held from 30th to 31st December, 2016 for regularisation of 502 ad-hoc employees of the Department and the name of the petitioner appears at serial No.347. As is evident from the affidavit filed by the State Government, it is seen that the State Government is yet to take a final decision in that regard. From the aforesaid circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner is discriminated from the other ad-hoc primary teachers working on ad-hoc at Somdal NK High School who are similarly situated. The stand of the State Government as averred in their affidavit that the State Government or for that, the Directorate of Education, has not issued any appointment order in respect of the other ad-hoc primary teachers working on ad-hoc at Somdal NK High School, appears to be incorrect in view of the circumstances as stated hereinbove. Therefore, this court is of the view that the impugned orders dated 03.08.2001 and 21.08.2001 are unreasonable and discriminatory being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 10. Therefore, this court is of the view that the impugned orders dated 03.08.2001 and 21.08.2001 are unreasonable and discriminatory being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 10. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the instant writ petition is allowed and consequently, the impugned orders dated 03.08.2001 and 21.08.2001, in respect of the petitioner, are quashed and set aside with the following directions: (a) The respondents and in particular, the respondent No.2 shall allow the petitioner to continue to serve as the primary teacher on ad-hoc basis at Somdal NK High School as directed by the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court vide its order dated 23.05.2000, till the post is filled up on regular basis; (b) So far as her arrears of pay & allowances are concerned, the respondent No.2 shall direct the ZEO, Ukhrul to hold an enquiry including examination of witnesses, students etc. and not the verification on paper, to find out the period for which the petitioner has rendered services; to submit the report within three months from to-day and if she is found to have rendered services for certain periods, she shall be given her pay & allowances for that period within two months thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs.