JUDGMENT : S. Serto, J. This is a writ petition filed by 110 employees of Mara Autonomous District Council (in short, MADC), a Council constituted under 6th Schedule of the Constitution of India. The petitioners were appointed to various posts and services viz; Primary School Teacher, IV Grade, Driver, Private Secretary to Chairman, Stenographer, LDC-cum-Computer Operator and Teacher in Middle School under Operation Black Board. They are challenging the notification dated 16.04.2018, issued by the Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, District Council & Minority Affairs Department, vide Office Memo No. A.11013/1/2018-DC&MA, whereby their appointment orders have been cancelled and declared null and void from the date on which they were issued, and whereby the Chief Executive Member of MADC was directed to confirm compliance of the same by 16.04.2018; and also challenging the orders by which the Executive Secretary of MADC cancelled the appointment orders of all the petitioners which were issued on 20.04.2018 and 02.05.2018 in compliance of the above stated impugned order. 2. Heard Mr. Victor L.Ralte, learned counsel for the petitioners and also Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned Standing counsel appearing for the MADC/respondent No.1 & 2 and Mr. A.K.Rokhum, learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondent No.3. 3. The facts and circumstances which led to the filing of this writ petition are as follows; The petitioners were appointed to various posts and services of MADC by vide appointment orders given here below; (i) petitioners No. 1 to 71 appointed as Primary Teacher on fixed pay basis vide order dated 13.12.2017, Office Memo No. MADC.9/GAD/2015-16. (ii) petitioner No. 72 appointed as IV Grade on fixed pay basis vide order dated 20.09.2017, Office Memo No. MADC.81/GAD/2015-16(I)/107. (iii) petitioner No. 73 appointed as Driver on fixed pay basis vide order dated 16.08.2017, Office Memo No. MADC.9/GAD/2015-16/137. (iv) petitioner No. 74 appointed as Private Secretary to Chairman on Coterminus basis vide order dated 27.06.2017, Office Memo No. MADC.9/GAD/2015-16. (vi) petitioners No. 75 & 76 appointed as Stenographer and LDC-cum- Computer Operator respectively on fixed pay basis vide order dated 13.09.2017, Office Memo No. MADC.81/GAD/2015-16/105. (vii) petitioners No. 77 to 85 appointed on fixed pay basis as Middle School Teacher Operation Black Board were regularized vide order dated 14.12.2017, Office Memo No. MADC.9/GAD/2015-16, and (viii) petitioners No. 86 to 110 appointed as Primary Teachers on fixed pay basis vide order dated 13.02.2018, Office Memo No. MADC.9/GAD/2015-16. (vii) petitioners No. 77 to 85 appointed on fixed pay basis as Middle School Teacher Operation Black Board were regularized vide order dated 14.12.2017, Office Memo No. MADC.9/GAD/2015-16, and (viii) petitioners No. 86 to 110 appointed as Primary Teachers on fixed pay basis vide order dated 13.02.2018, Office Memo No. MADC.9/GAD/2015-16. While the petitioners were continuing in their respective posts/services, the Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, District Council & Minority Affairs Department, issued the impugned notification dated 16.04.2018, whereby as stated already all the orders by which the petitioners were appointed to their respective posts and services were cancelled and declared null and void from the date on which the orders were issued. The full contents of the impugned order at Annexure-5 of the writ petition are reproduced here below; "No. A.11013/2018-DC&MA GOVERNMENT OF MIZORAM DISTRICT COUNCIL & MINORITY AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT. NOTIFICATION Dated Aizawl, the 16th April, 2018. The MADC had issued orders for appointment/regularization of employees without obtaining prior approval of the Hon'ble Governor as detailed given below; 1. 71 Nos. of Fixed Pay Teachers vide No. MADC.9/GAD/2015-16, dt. 13.12.2017. 2. 1 no. of Fixed Pay IV Grade vide No. MADC.81/GAD/2015-16, dt. 20.09.2017. 3. 1 no. of Driver on Co-terminus basis vide No..9/GAD/2015-16, dt. 16.08.2017. 4. 1 no. of Private Secretary to Chairman on Co-terminus basis vide No. MADC.9/GAD/2015-16, dt. 27.06.2017 5. 2 nos. of Fixed Pay Steno and LDC vide No. MADC.81/GAD/2015- 16/105, dt. 13.09.2017. 6. 9 nos. of Regularisation of Middle School Teachers vide No. Sd/- RODNEY L.RALTE Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram District Council & Minority Affairs Department". 4. Thereafter, as directed in the order given above, the Executive Secretary, MADC, by different orders issued on 20.04.2018 and 02.05.2018 cancelled all the appointment orders of the petitioners. The cancellation orders with their numbers and different dates are given here below; (i) petitioners No. 1 to 71 by vide order No. MADC.9/GAD/15-16, dated 20.04.2018, (ii) petitioner No. 72 by order No. MADC.9/GAD/2015-16, dated 20.04.2018, (iii) petitioner No. 73 by order No. MADC.9/GAD/2015-16, dated 20.04.2018, (iv) petitioner No. 74 by order No. MADC.9/GAD/2015-16, dated 20.04.2018, (v) petitioners No. 75 & 76 by order No. MADC.9/GAD/2015-16, dated 20.04.2018, (vi) petitioners No. 77 to 85 by order No. MADC.9/GAD/2015-16, dated 20.04.2018, and (vii) petitioners No. 86 to 110, vide order dated 02.05.2018. All the orders were issued by the Executive Secretary, MADC. All the orders were issued by the Executive Secretary, MADC. Being aggrieved by the said impugned notifications and orders by which their appointment orders have been cancelled, the petitioners have come to this Court praying as stated above. 5. Mr. Victor L. Ralte, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the MADC being a Council constituted under 6th Schedule of the Constitution of India has sufficient power and authority to appoint individuals to various posts and services under its administration to meet the exigencies of the service provided it is done within its budgetary allocation. In support of his submission, the learned counsel referred to Rule-26 of MADC (Constitution, conduct of business, etc.) Rules, 2002. The learned counsel further submitted that the termination orders were issued arbitrarily without complying with the principle of natural justice, therefore, they deserves to be quashed and set aside. In support of his submission he cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of V.P. Ahuja versus- State of Punjab & Others, (2000) 3 SCC 239 , para-7. The contents of the said paragraph are reproduced here below; "7. A probationer, like a temporary servant, is also entitled to certain protection and his service cannot be terminated arbitrarily, nor can those services be terminated in a punitive manner without complying with the principles of natural justice." 6. Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 & 2/MADC referred to Rule-26 of MADC (Constitution, conduct of business, etc.) Rules, 2002, and submitted that Executive Secretary of the District Council has the power to determine the number of the officers and staff of the Council and make appointment to such post and services without consultation or prior approval of the State Government if it is within its budgetary allocation and the grants-in-aid. However, if the same would results in excess of the budgetary allocation and the grants-in-aid prior consultation of the State Government and approval of the State Government are required. The learned counsel further referred to Rule-28 of the same Act and submitted that the Executive Committee of the Council can dispose of all the matters falling within its purview except certain service matters which are specified in the same rule which requires reference to the Governor for final approval. The learned counsel further referred to Rule-28 of the same Act and submitted that the Executive Committee of the Council can dispose of all the matters falling within its purview except certain service matters which are specified in the same rule which requires reference to the Governor for final approval. The learned counsel thereafter, submitted that among the list given under Clause-2 of Rule-28 appointment of non-gazetted officers is not mentioned, therefore, appointment orders of the petitioners in the writ petition which are non-gazetted does not require reference to the Governor for approval. 7. Mr. B. Lalramenga also referred to sub-paragraph-(6) & (7) of para-2 of the 6th Schedule and submitted that the District Council i.e. MADC with prior approval of the Governor can make rule for the subject mentioned therein and accordingly, the said MADC (Constitution, conduct of business etc.) Rules, 2002 was made. This rules, according to the learned counsel was made under the provisions of the 6th Schedule of the Constitution of India, therefore, it cannot be override by notifications or orders issued by the State Government. The learned counsel referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Ajaya Kumar Das versus- State of Orissa & Others, (2011) 11 SCC 136 , the relevant para-14. The contents of the same are reproduced here below; "14. Neither the Circular dated 18-6-1982 nor the subsequent Circular dated 19-03-1983 modifying the earlier Circular dated 18-6-1982 can override the statutory provision contained in Rule-74(b) of the Code if it results in reduction of pay of the employee on promotion. That the Orissa Service Code has been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution Is not in dispute. It is well settled that the statutory rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution can be amended only by a rule or notification duly made under Article 309 and not otherwise. Whatever be the efficacy of the executive orders of circulars or instructions, statutory rules cannot be altered or amended by such executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace the statutory rules. The Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution cannot be tinkered by the administrative instructions or circulars." 8. Whatever be the efficacy of the executive orders of circulars or instructions, statutory rules cannot be altered or amended by such executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace the statutory rules. The Rules made under Article 309 of the Constitution cannot be tinkered by the administrative instructions or circulars." 8. The learned counsel, thereafter, submitted that impugned orders dated 16.04.2018, issued by the Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, District Council & Minority Affairs Department, directing the MADC to issue the cancellation orders cancelling the appointment of the petitioners is violative of the rules framed under the 6th Schedule of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the consequential orders issued by the Executive Secretary, MADC, whereby the appointment orders of the petitioners were cancelled are also illegal and not maintainable. 9. Mr. A.K. Rokhum, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the respondent No.3 candidly submitted that he has no different opinion from the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 & 2. 10. Rule-26 & Rule-28 of MADC (Constitution, conduct of business etc.) Rules, 2002, reads as follows; "Rule-26. The Executive Committee may, from time to time, determine and appoint number of officers and staff to be employed by it and may fix the salaries and allowances to be paid to such establishment, in prior consultation with, and with prior approval of the State Government if it results in financial implication in excess of the budgetary allocation and the grants-in-aid. Rule-28. (1). The Executive Committee shall dispose of all matters falling within its purview, except certain matters hereinafter specified which shall be referred to the Governor for final approval. (2). Rule-28. (1). The Executive Committee shall dispose of all matters falling within its purview, except certain matters hereinafter specified which shall be referred to the Governor for final approval. (2). The specified matters required to be referred to the District Council as mentioned in sub-rule (1) shall be as follows; (a) cases involving any important change in the administrative system of the Autonomous District or any important departure from accepted policy or practice; (b) proposals for making regulations, rules or laws as authorized under the provisions of the Schedule; (c) cases which may seriously affect, or are likely to affect the Mara Autonomous District or affect or likely to affect relations with any such other District area; (d) cases affecting the relations of the State Government with the Autonomous District Council; (e) all correspondence of importance with the State Government and the Government of India; (f) all matters falling within the purview of the discretionary powers of the Governor under paragraph-20BB of the Schedule when sought to be consulted under that paragraph by the Governor with the District Council; (g) appointments of all Gazetted officers; (h) any other matter or matters which the Executive Committee may think proper to be placed before the District Council; and (3). All members required to be placed before the District Council shall be sent to the Secretary in writing for placing before the said Council". It appears from the introduction of the MADC (Constitution, Conduct of Business etc.) Rules, 2002, that the same was made by the MADC with the approval of the Government of Mizoram under the authority given in sub- paragraph-(7) of para-2 of the 6th Schedule of the Constitution of India which reads as follows; "7. It appears from the introduction of the MADC (Constitution, Conduct of Business etc.) Rules, 2002, that the same was made by the MADC with the approval of the Government of Mizoram under the authority given in sub- paragraph-(7) of para-2 of the 6th Schedule of the Constitution of India which reads as follows; "7. The District or the Regional Council may after its first Constitution make rules with the approval of the Governor with regard to the matters specified in sub paragraph-(6) of this paragraph and may also make rules with like approval regulating- (a) The formation of sub-ordinate Local Councils or boards and their procedure and the conduct of their business; and (b) Generally all matters relating to the transaction of business pertaining to the administration of the District or Region, as the case may be; Provided that until rules are made by the District or the Regional Council under these paragraph the rules made by the Governor under sub-paragraph-(6) of this paragraph shall have effect in respect of elections to, the officers and staff of, and the procedure and the conduct of business in, its such council." 1 Therefore, the MADC (Constitution, Conduct of Business etc.) Rules, 2002 is a statute made under the authority given in 6th Schedule of the Constitution, as such, the power given under Rule-26 & 27 of the same are sacrosanct and cannot be interfered with or override by Executive order or orders or notifications. Thus, I am in agreement with the submissions of both the learned counsels that the impugned order dated 16.04.2018, issued vide Memo No. A.11013/1/2018-DC&MA, by the Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, District Council & Minority Affairs Department, is violative of the rules framed under the 6th Schedule of the Constitution of India, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside. Further, I am also in agreement with the submission that since the order by which the Chief Executive Member, MADC was directed to cancel the appointment orders of the petitioners is violative of the rules framed under the 6th Schedule of the Constitution of India, the cancellation orders issued by the respondent No. 2, vide Memo No. MADC.9/GAD/2015-16, dated 20.04.2018, and the order dated 02.05.2018, are also illegal and the deserve to be quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the said impugned orders are also quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed and disposed of.