JUDGMENT : Nelson Sailo, J. 1. Heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Mr. C. Zoramchhana, the learned Addl. Advocate General for the respondent No. 4. 2. As many as 44 writ petitioners have joined hands in filing the writ petition claiming that they have a common cause of action against the respondents. 3. Brief facts of the case as presented by the petitioners is that they were appointed to different posts by the respondent No. 1 such as Lower Division Clerk, Computer Operator, Staff Nurse, Laboratory Technician, Driver etc. either on Muster Roll or fixed pay basis between 06.03.2018 to 21.03.2018. They contend that they were appointed by the competent authority of the Chakma Autonomous District Council (CADC) as per law. However, vide the impugned Order dated 31.05.2018 (Annexure-20) their appointments were abruptly revoked by the respondent No. 1 for no reason and without any notice. Being highly aggrieved, they are before this Court. 4. Mr. B. Lalramenga, the learned counsel submits that the CADC (Constitution, Conduct of Business etc.) Rules, 2002 (Rules of 2002) was framed in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-paragraph (7) of paragraph 2 of the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India, read with paragraph 20 (BB) with the approval of the Governor of the State. By referring to Rule 26 of the Rules of 2002, the learned counsel submits that the Executive Committee of the CADC is empowered to determine and appoint number of officers and staff to be employed by it from time to time and also fix the salaries and allowances to be paid to such establishment. He submits that Rule 27 (2) of the Rules of 2002 provides that the Executive Committee has the power to dispose of all matters falling within its purview, except those that are mentioned therein. He submits that in case of any appointment to a Gazetted post, prior approval of the Governor is required to be obtained but insofar as the posts to which the petitioners were appointed, they not being Gazetted posts, prior consultation and approval of the Governor is not required. He submits that in case of any appointment to a Gazetted post, prior approval of the Governor is required to be obtained but insofar as the posts to which the petitioners were appointed, they not being Gazetted posts, prior consultation and approval of the Governor is not required. The petitioners therefore having been appointed by the Competent Authority under the Rules of 2002, they could not have been terminated vide the impugned Order dated 31.05.2018 and that too, without a notice. He thus submits that the impugned Order dated 31.05.2018 being unsustainable, the same is liable to be set aside. 5. Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 submits that as per the official records maintained by the office of the Executive Secretary, CADC (respondent No. 3), the names of the petitioners are nowhere found as appointees during the month of February and March, 2018 as claimed. He submits that the appointments of all categories of employees/posts under the CADC are dealt with by the General Administration Department, which maintains the official records of all the appointments. The same is provided under Rule 2 (21) of the CADC (Allocation of Business) Rules, 2009 (Rules of 2009). As such, if the petitioners were appointed as per the existing Rules and procedures of appointment, their names and details of their appointments including the record of the selection process should be available in the official record of the Department. However, there are no records found on the selection and appointment of the petitioners and therefore, the claim of the petitioners that they were appointed by the competent authority and as per law is only misconceived. 6. Referring to the affidavit-in-opposition of the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed on 24.09.2018, Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, the learned counsel further submits that the appointment letters of the petitioners were allegedly issued by the outgoing Chief Executive Member (CEM) without following any process for selection and appointment. This is clear from the fact that there are no records for such selection and appointment. He submits that in view of the ensuing General Elections to the CADC, the State Election Commission, Mizoram issued Notification dated 23.03.2018 enforcing Model Code of Conduct. After election to the CADC was held, there was a change of hands in the composition of the Executive Council. He submits that in view of the ensuing General Elections to the CADC, the State Election Commission, Mizoram issued Notification dated 23.03.2018 enforcing Model Code of Conduct. After election to the CADC was held, there was a change of hands in the composition of the Executive Council. The new CEM on joining his office, noticed that a number of appointments, promotions, regularization etc. had been done by the outgoing CEM without following the process under the Rules of 2002 and the Rules of 2009. Therefore, the Executive Committee of the CADC on 22.05.2018 took a decision to constitute a Review Committee to look into the appointment, promotion, service regularization, financial upgradation, service transfer and change of designation made w.e.f., 01.02.2018 to 22.03.2018 except the orders that was issued vide No. A.12032/1/2004-2005/CADC(G) dated 13.03.2018 and the orders issued as per DPC recommendation pertaining to promotion/pay upgradation of teachers under Education Department. Accordingly, vide Notification dated 23.05.2018 a Review Committee was constituted. The Review Committee after having its sitting on 30.05.2018 and 31.05.2018 came to the conclusion that no official procedure and formalities had been followed in issuing orders of appointment/promotion/pay upgradation/service regularization/service transfer/change of designation w.e.f. 01.02.2018 to 22.03.2018. Therefore, all the orders made during the said period except the orders issued under the Legislative Department and those issued as per the recommendation of the DPC under the Education Department may be treated as cancelled or null and void. Such report was submitted on 31.05.2018 by the Review Committee. The report was considered by the Executive Council of the CADC on the same day and the same was accepted. Following the acceptance, the impugned Order dated 31.05.2018 was passed. The learned counsel submits that the respondents in passing the impugned order did not commit any illegality, inasmuch as, the petitioners were appointed without any process and just before the elections for obvious reasons. Such appointments can therefore be only termed as illegal appointment. He submits that the established law in this regard is that those who come or enter by the back door should go back by the same door. In this connection, the learned counsel places his reliance on the case of State of U.P. and Others vs. U.P. State Law Officers Association, (1994) 2 SCC 204 . He thus submits that the writ petition being without merit, the same should be dismissed. 7. In this connection, the learned counsel places his reliance on the case of State of U.P. and Others vs. U.P. State Law Officers Association, (1994) 2 SCC 204 . He thus submits that the writ petition being without merit, the same should be dismissed. 7. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record, including the file produced by Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 8. From the projection made by the parties, the issue to be considered is as to whether the petitioners were appointed under due process. Secondly, whether their appointments could have been cancelled without issuance of a notice. Rule 26 of the Rules of 2002 provides that the Executive Committee shall determine and appoint number of officers and Staff to be employed by it and may fix the salaries and allowances, in prior consultation and approval of the State Government. Rule 27 (2) of the same Rules provides that all orders and instruments of the Executive Committee signed by the Chief Executive Member or any other member authorized by the Chief Executive Member. Rule 28 of the same Rules empowers the Executive Committee to dispose of all matters falling within its purview, except those cases provided therein including their appointments of Gazette Officers. 9. Rule 27 (2) of the Rules of 2009 provides that all cases of appointment, posting, deputation, termination, compulsory retirement, removal etc. shall be put up by the heads of Department to the Executive Secretary, who shall put them up before the CEM through the concerned Executive Member for orders. The matters relating to appointments, transfer, posting and deputation of all categories of officers employed under the CADC are to be routed through the Executive Secretary for submission to the CEM before the issuance of orders as per Rule 26 of the same Rules. 10. Coming to the present case, it is seen that the petitioners, no doubt have been appointed by the orders of the CEM a copy of the orders marked to the persons concerned, the Executive Secretary, CADC, the concerned head of Department, the Finance and Accounts Officer and a copy kept in the guard file. However, from the file produced by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. However, from the file produced by the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 which contains the written communication of the Executive Secretary of the CADC dated 29.05.2019 vide Memo No. C.180018/1/ 2016-2017/CADC(G), it is seen that although a reference of file numbers (i) No. A.12032/8/2013-2014/CADC(G) (ii) No. A.12032/6/2011-2012/CADC(G) and (iii) No. A.12032/2/2015-2016/CADC(G) are made in the appointment orders of the petitioners but no such files were found in the General Administration and Control Department of the CADC which is the nodal Department dealing with the appointment of all categories of posts under the CADC. Although the petitioners in their rejoinder affidavit filed on 10.04.2019 have annexed a copy of their appointment orders furnished by the Under Secretary, General Administration & Control Department of the CADC in reply to their application under Right to Information Act, it is seen that they are similar to those annexed in the writ petition itself. However, besides the appointment orders, there appears to be no process as contemplated under the Rules of 2002 and the Rules of 2009 as already mentioned hereinabove. 11. The respondents also contend that the file numbers maintained in the appointment orders are not found in the General Administration and Control Department. Further, the admitted position is that pursuant to their respective appointments, the petitioners have not joined the post to which they were appointed, though they have annexed a copy of their joining report with specific reference to the orders passed by this Court on 26.07.2018 in their rejoinder affidavit. The impugned Order dated 31.05.2018 was stayed by this Court but the same cannot be construed to be a direction for allowing the petitioners to join their respective posts. Furthermore, the reference to the Judgment and Order dated 17.01.2019 passed in WP (C) No. 23/2018 made by the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be compared to the present case, inasmuch as, the facts and circumstances and the issue involved are not at all similar. In short, the issue raised in that writ petition was as to whether the State Government can insist upon the CADC to take its approval prior to making appointments to various posts excluding Gazetted posts. In short, the issue raised in that writ petition was as to whether the State Government can insist upon the CADC to take its approval prior to making appointments to various posts excluding Gazetted posts. This Court having regard to sub-paragraph (7) of paragraph 2 of the Sixth Schedule read with paragraph 20 (BB) of the Constitution of India came to the conclusion that prior approval of the State Government was not necessary, insofar as non Gazetted posts are concerned. The petitioners therein had also rendered their services for quite some time and as extended from time to time by the Executive Committee of the CADC. The same is not the case in the present writ petition. Also it is not the State Government but the CADC itself, which has questioned the legality of the appointment of the petitioners just before the election for membership to the CADC. 12. Under the facts and circumstances and upon due consideration of the case in its entirety, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is therefore dismissed. Having concluded thus, the case of U.P. State law Officers Association and Others (Supra) requires no further mention. 13. Interim order passed earlier shall stand merged with this order. No cost.