JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. A.R Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mrs. Linda L Fambawl, learned Government Advocate for the State respondents and Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC for the respondent Union of India. 2. By filing this writ petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the impugned notification issued under Memo No. A. 11013/1/2010-EDN dated 22.04.2010(Annexure-4) by which, 1305 posts of Hindi Teachers under Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) of financial assistance for appointment of language Teachers was created to be filled up on contract basis and co-terminus with the scheme of central funding. The break-up of the posts is 389 posts for High School Hindi Teacher and 916 posts for Middle School Hindi Teacher. 3. The facts of the case in brief is that pursuant to the creation of posts vide the impugned Notification dated 22.04.2010, the Director of School Education (respondent No.4) issued an advertisement for filling up of the posts that was created and the petitioners accordingly applied for the same. On being selected, the petitioner Nos. 1 to 375 were temporary engaged as High School Hindi Teachers under the CSS on contract basis at a fixed remuneration of Rs. 9750 up to 31.03.2011 subject to acceptance of terms and conditions as allowed in the agreement to be signed by the parties vide Office Order dated 18.02.2011 (Annexure-6). The engagement of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 375 were subsequently extended from time to time by the respondent No. 4 and their fixed pay was also enhanced to Rs. 29,000/-per month. Lastly, the respondent No. 4 vide Office Order dated 02.06.2016 (Annexure12) extended the engagement of the petitioner Nos. 1 to 375 on contract and co-terminus basis w.e.f 01.03.2016 to 28.02.2017 at a fixed remuneration of Rs. 29,000/-per month. 4. The respondent No. 4 also vide Order dated 18.02.2011 (Annexure-13) issued the temporary engagement of the petitioner Nos. 376 to 1232 and others as Middle School Hindi Teachers under CSS contract basis at a fixed remuneration of Rs.7500/-up to 31.03.2011 subject to acceptance of terms and conditions as laid down in the agreement. The engagement of the said petitioners was subsequently extended from time to time and lastly, the respondent No. 4 vide Office Order dated 02.06.2010 (Annexure-19) extended the engagement of the said petitioners w.e.f. 01.03.2016 to 28.02.2017 on a fixed remuneration of Rs. The engagement of the said petitioners was subsequently extended from time to time and lastly, the respondent No. 4 vide Office Order dated 02.06.2010 (Annexure-19) extended the engagement of the said petitioners w.e.f. 01.03.2016 to 28.02.2017 on a fixed remuneration of Rs. 29,000/-per month subject to the terms and conditions laid down in the agreement. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that the proforma respondent No. 5 vide Letter dated 11.11.2016 had conveyed approval of Rs. 6,26,88,000/-as the 1st installment towards salary of 1305 Hindi Teachers for the year 2016-2017 to the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Thereafter, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 illegally discontinued the engagement of the petitioners on contract basis w.e.f. 01.03.2017 because of the discontinuation of financial assistance by the proforma respondent No. 5. According to the petitioners, the proforma respondent No. 5 vide Letter dated 08.03.2017 (Annexure-21) had written to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 explaining that the objection of the scheme was to provide support to the State Governments for effective implementation of “three language formula” and as per the guidelines of the revised scheme, financial assistance in respect of North Eastern States will be given till the terminal year of 12th Plan period i.e. financial year 2016-2017. As per the provisions of the scheme, the liability of the posts created with the approval of the Department during the 11th & 12th 5 year Plan is to be taken over by the respective State Government, after completion of the 12th Plan period. Accordingly, from the financial year 2017-2018, the responsibility of maintenance of the Teachers would rest upon the concerned State Government. However, despite this position, the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 failed to take over the responsibility of maintenance of the petitioners over to the State Government budget from the financial year 2017-2018 and therefore, the petitioners through the Teachers’ Association submitted their representation on 17.05.2017 (Annexure-22) to the Hon’ble Minister of State DONER, requesting him to extend the employment of the petitioners by at least 10 years with Central Government funding. The representation was forwarded to the proforma respondent No. 5 for consideration and the response from the proforma respondent No. 5 was that as per the norms of the scheme, the financial year 2016-2017 was the terminal year of the scheme and beyond the said period, the responsibility rests upon the State Government to carry forward the engagement of teachers from their own resources. 6. The further case of the petitioners is that in case of their seniors, who were also appointed as Hindi Teachers under CSS during the earlier plan period, the respondent No. 2 vide Letter dated 18.06.2007 had informed the respondent No. 4 about the Government’s approval for conversion of the 491 posts of Hindi Teachers created under the CSS against which they were appointed into State plan from the 11th Five year plan period. Therefore, according to the petitioners, the posts occupied by them were also created under the CSS and since their seniors were regularized after the post they were occupied were converted from CSS to State plan, similar benefits should be given to them as well. 7. The petitioners also contend that the State Government framed the recruitment rules for recruitment to the post of High School Teachers i.e. the Mizoram Education & Human Resources Development Department (Group ‘B’ posts) Recruitment Rules, 2000. The same was amended by the Mizoram Education & Human Resources Development Department (Group ‘B’ posts recruitment) (1st amendment) Rules, 2005 and later on, repealed and replaced by the Mizoram Education & Human Resources Development Department (Group ‘B’ posts) Recruitment Rules, 2012. Similarly, for recruitment to the posts of Middle School Hindi Teachers, the recruitment Rules framed i.e. Mizoram Education & Human Resources Development (Group ‘C’ posts) Recruitment Rules, 2000 was repealed and replaced by the Mizoram Education & Human Resources Development Department (Group ‘B’ posts) Recruitment Rules, 2012. According to the petitioners, all of them have the requisite educational and other qualifications for recruitment to the post of Hindi Teachers in High Schools and Middle Schools at the time of their initial appointment and they were also appointed after going through the selection process. Therefore, they have every right to continue to be engaged as High School and Middle School Hindi Teachers. 8. Mr. A.R Malhotra, learned counsel submits that the Ministry of Human & Resources Development, Department of School Education and Literacy, Govt. Therefore, they have every right to continue to be engaged as High School and Middle School Hindi Teachers. 8. Mr. A.R Malhotra, learned counsel submits that the Ministry of Human & Resources Development, Department of School Education and Literacy, Govt. of India had given its approval for appointment of 1305 Teachers against new posts during the year 2009-2010 with financial assistance on 100% basis. It was also provided that the responsibility of maintenance of Hindi Teachers and payment of their salary after the completion of the terminal year of the next plan period would rest upon the State Government and that there will be no liability on the part of the Central Government. He submits that this was clearly conveyed to the State Government by the Ministry of Human Resources Development to the Principal Accounts Officer, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resources Development on 26.11.2009 (Annexure-2) as a copy was marked to all concerned including the State Government. However, despite the same, the State Government has issued the impugned Notification dated 22.04.2010 creating 1305 posts of Hindi Teachers under the CSS on co-terminus basis of the scheme and the petitioners were allowed to continue in their respective posts up to 28.02.2017 only. As it is clear that the liability to continue maintaining the Teachers after completion of the plan period rests upon the State Government, the State Government should be directed to continue the engagement of the petitioners after the expiry of the completion period w.e.f. 01.03.2017. 9. The learned counsel further submits that a new scheme was introduced under the CSS by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of School Education & Literacy, Govt. of India, vide O.M dated 21.10.2019 and in terms of the said scheme, the respondent No. 4 issued Advertisement dated 29.09.2020 for filling up of 665 posts. He, however, submits that it has not been indicated as to how many posts of High School Hindi Teachers and how many posts of Middle School Hindi Teachers have been earmarked. He submits that in view of the amendment of the relevant Recruitment Rules, only a few of the petitioners are eligible to apply for the post. He, however, submits that it has not been indicated as to how many posts of High School Hindi Teachers and how many posts of Middle School Hindi Teachers have been earmarked. He submits that in view of the amendment of the relevant Recruitment Rules, only a few of the petitioners are eligible to apply for the post. However, considering the fact that the petitioners were eligible to be appointed to their respective posts at the time of their initial appointment, the State respondents should be directed to either allow the petitioners to continue in the post they were initially appointed and if not to condone any deficiency in their qualification to accommodate them on 29.09.2020. Mr. A.R Malhotra, learned counsel, in support of his submission has relied upon the State of Assam vs. Nirmalibora & Ors., reported in 2008 (3) GLT 543. 10. Mrs. Linda L Fambawl, learned Government Advocate by referring to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the State respondents on 25.06.2019 submits that the instructions of the State Government in the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (ARW) to the Department of School Education was to fill up the posts in question on contract basis at the fixed remuneration and co-terminus with the Central funding. However, the School Education Department was also advised to satisfy such conditions in the advertisement and also to execute a deed of agreement with the contract employees to avoid any complications in the future. Accordingly, steps in that direction was taken to engage the petitioners’ co-terminus with the scheme. The learned Government Advocate submits that the State Government did not make any commitment to the Central Government that it will take up the responsibility of maintenance of Hindi Teachers and payment of their salary after the completion of the terminal year of the 12th Plan period. It was clearly spelled out at the very outset that the post should be co-terminus with the Central funding by the DP&AR (ARW) ID dated 09.03.2010 and therefore, the State Government is not duty bound to continue with the services of the petitioners who were engaged on co-terminus basis. 11. It was clearly spelled out at the very outset that the post should be co-terminus with the Central funding by the DP&AR (ARW) ID dated 09.03.2010 and therefore, the State Government is not duty bound to continue with the services of the petitioners who were engaged on co-terminus basis. 11. The learned Government Advocate further submits that the petitioners being fully aware of the nature of the scheme had responded to the advertisement and signed the agreement bond without any coercion or force to join such appointments and therefore, they are estopped from raising their grievance that their services has been discontinued which otherwise, is due to the discontinuation of funding from the Ministry. 12. The learned Government Advocate further submits that in view of the public interest and the practicability of the situation at the relevant time including the financial position of the State, conversion of posts from CSS to State plan was earlier done. However, there is no liability on the part of the State Government to again convert the created 1305 Hindi Teachers posts into State Plan. As per the latest Recruitment Rules on 2012, most of the petitioners do not have the qualification for appointment to the post of High School Hindi Teachers and Middle School Hindi Teachers. However, they have all the opportunity and chance to apply after qualifying themselves for the posts in terms of the Recruitment Rules in vogue. She, therefore, submits that under the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same should be dismissed. 13. Ms. Zairemsangpuii, learned CGC appearing for the proforma respondent No. 5 submits that it is clear from the CSS that the Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of School Education & Literacy has extended financial assistance for the plan period only. It has also mentioned that the responsibility of maintaining Hindi Teachers and payment of salary would rest upon the State concerned. As such, the respondent Union of India has no liability in the matter. 14. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 15. From a perusal of the Communication dated 26.11.2009 issued by the Department of School Education & Literacy, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Govt. As such, the respondent Union of India has no liability in the matter. 14. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 15. From a perusal of the Communication dated 26.11.2009 issued by the Department of School Education & Literacy, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Govt. of India to the Principal Accounts Officer, Department of Higher Education under the same Ministry with a copy to the State Government, the approval of the Govt. of India for appointment of 1305 Teachers against new posts during the year 2009-2010 in the form of financial assistance on 100% basis was available till the terminal year of the next plan period. It was also provided that the responsibility of the maintenance of Hindi Teachers and payment of the salary after completion of the terminal year would rest upon the State Government. However, the State Government vide the impugned Notification dated 22.04.2010 created 1305 posts of Hindi Teachers under the CSS of financial assistance for appointment of language Teachers by providing that the posts should be filled up on contract basis and co-terminus with the scheme of Central fund. Further, an agreement deed is to be executed with the contract employees. Pursuant to the creation of posts, the advertisement was issued wherein it was indicated that the posts advertised would carry fixed pay and would be co-terminus. 16. The petitioners under such conditions responded to the advertisement and were appointed as such on fixed pay and for the duration indicated in their appointment order. Their engagement was extended from time to time till the plan period expired on 28.02.2017. It is seen that no grievances as such was raised by the petitioners during the time of their engagement on contract basis and it is only after their discontinuation w.e.f. 01.03.2017 that they have sought to challenge the post creation order issued by the impugned Notification dated 22.04.2010. The financial assistance rendered by the Central Government in the form of CSS although has indicated that the responsibility after the expiry of the plan period would rest upon the State Government but that by itself cannot be the ground to compel the State Government to convert the post created under the CSS into State plan, more particularly when the financial position of the State is bad. Besides this, the petitioners despite knowingly the fact that their appointment was on contract basis and co-terminus with the scheme accepted their appointment as well. Such being the case, no direction can be given to the State respondents to take up the liability and to continue with the engagement of the petitioners beyond 28.02.2017. 17. The case of State of Assam vs. Nirmalibora & Ors. (supra) is clearly distinguishable, inasmuch as the State Government itself had assured the Central Government that the teachers appointed under the OBB Scheme will not be retrenched but adjusted against the State Plan-Non-Plan vacant posts. The State Government, in fact, had taken a decision to absorb the incumbents in a phased manner. However, the same is not the case in the present case. The Apex Court in State of H.P vs. Ashwani Kumar & Ors., reported in (1996) 1 SCC 773 , in the given facts of that case held that the High Court was not right in giving a direction to regularized the service of daily wages engaged by the State Government on Muster Roll basis in Central Scheme and paid out of funds provided by the Central Government. The Apex Court held that no vested right is created in temporary employment. When the project is completed and closed due to non-availability of funds, consequently, the employees have to go along with the closed project. 18. Thus, under the facts and circumstances of the case and after due consideration, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and accordingly dismissed. No cost.