JUDGMENT : NELSON SAILO, J. 1. This order will dispose of all the 7 (seven) writ petitions since they are all similar and involve common issues to be decided. Out of the 7 (seven) writ petitions, the petitioner in WP (C) No. 63/2021 was appointed as Officer Scale-I under the Mizoram Rural Bank while the remaining petitioners were all appointed as Group ‘B’ Office Assistant. For brevity, the facts in WP (C) No. 64/2021 will be referred to as hereunder. 2. Pursuant to the advertisement for the post of Group ‘B’ Office Assistant circulated in the website on 22.07.2017, the petitioner applied for the said post and after undergoing the process of selection, he was given an offer of appointment on 03.04.2018. In the offer of appointment, it was stated that in case he did not possess the required qualification with regard to the proficiency in local language as per the terms and conditions, his selection will be on provisional basis and the final selection will be subject to his acquiring necessary proficiency in local language within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of the joining report and that the appropriate authority will review his suitability within a period of 6 (six) months. 3. Following the petitioner’s appointment, the respondent authorities vide Letter dated 09.11.2018 informed the petitioner that the local language proficiency test was scheduled to be conducted in the Head Office on 14.11.2018 at 2:00 PM in the level of Class-VIII standard general Mizo language and that he was advised to attend the said test. Although the petitioner sat for the test on the given date but no announcement of the result was made and that his probation period was to end on 06.05.2019. According to the petitioner, during his probation period there was no communication from the respondent authority regarding the further extension of probationary period for 6 (six) months as per the rules asking him to acquire proficiency in local language and holding test during this period. Therefore, the petitioner was of the bona fide belief that he qualified himself in the test conducted on 14.11.2018. Therefore, the petitioner was of the bona fide belief that he qualified himself in the test conducted on 14.11.2018. However, to his surprise on 27.01.2020, the Chief Manager (Per) wrote a letter to the Branch Manager, Mizoram Rural Bank, Kawlkulh Branch informing him to depute the petitioner to attend Regional (Mizo) language trainingcum- test for staff who were not proficient in local language scheduled to be held between 17th to 19th February, 2020 at the Head Office in Aizawl. The petitioner accordingly sat for the test but again, the result was not declared. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner received a letter from the General Manager dated 05.08.2020 informing him that he had failed to qualify the language proficiency test conducted on 19th February, 2020 and for which reason, he could not be confirmed in service. The General Manager by referring to the 209th Board of Directors Meeting held on 16.07.2020 informed the petitioner that his service was extended for another 6 (six) months, w.e.f. 16.07.2020 and that local language proficiency test will be conducted during the extension period and failure to qualify the test would result in his disqualification from the service. 5. The respondent authorities, however, did not conduct any local language proficiency test in terms of the Communication dated 05.08.2020 and instead, vide the impugned Letter dated 30.03.2021 terminated the service of the petitioner w.e.f. 31.03.2021 for non-fulfillment of the eligibility criteria laid down in the Notification No. 880 dated 29.03.2017, which was published in the Gazette of India. Aggrieved, the petitioners are before this Court. 6. Mr. Chandrasekhar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the Regional Rural Banks (Appointment of Officers and Employees) Rules, 2017 (Rules of 2017), for the post of Officer Junior Management (Scale-I) Group ‘A’ proficiency in the local language is one of the essential qualification as mentioned in the 3rd Schedule. Candidates who have studied the language of the State in Standard-VIII or above in Boards of Education or School recognized by the Government or candidates possessing any certificate to the effect for Standard-VIII or above will be considered proficient in that local language. However, those who do not have proficiency in local language at the time of selection will be given 6 (six) months’ time from the date of joining to acquire the proficiency. However, those who do not have proficiency in local language at the time of selection will be given 6 (six) months’ time from the date of joining to acquire the proficiency. The period of 6 (six) months may be extended by the board for a further period of 6 (six) months and which may again be further extended for another 6 (six) months period by recording the reasons in writing. However, such extension cannot exceed the probation period. 7. The learned counsel further submits that as per the Mizoram Rural Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 (Regulations of 2010), the period of probation for an officer directly appointed in Group ‘A’ post is 2 (two) years and which can be extended by the appointing authority for a period not exceeding 1 (one) year. In respect of employees in Scale-I of Group ‘A’ the period of probation is for 1 (one) year which can be extended for a period of 6 (six) months. Further, in respect of employees directly appointed in Group ‘B’ or Group ‘C’ they shall be on probation for a period of 1 (one) year which may be extended by the appointing authority for a period not exceeding 6 (six) months. He submits that even after the probation period of service of the petitioners ended, the respondent authorities did not issue any formal order extending their probation period in terms of the Rules of 2017 and the Regulations of 2010. It was only vide Communication dated 05.08.2020 that their probation period was extended by 6 (six) months in terms of the resolution taken by the Board of Directors of the Bank in its 209th Meeting held on 16.07.2020. The 6 (six) months’ probation period was to take effect from 16.07.2020 and that local language proficiency test was to be conducted during the period of extension. However, without conducting any such test, the petitioners have been terminated from their service w.e.f. 31.03.2021. The impugned action of the respondent being most unfair and also against their own decision, the Court may, therefore, set aside their termination orders and direct their reinstatement w.e.f. 31.03.2021 with all consequential benefits. 8. Mr. However, without conducting any such test, the petitioners have been terminated from their service w.e.f. 31.03.2021. The impugned action of the respondent being most unfair and also against their own decision, the Court may, therefore, set aside their termination orders and direct their reinstatement w.e.f. 31.03.2021 with all consequential benefits. 8. Mr. C. Zoramchhana, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, by referring to the affidavit-inopposition filed by the respondents on 13.12.2021 submits that the petitioners were clearly informed at the time of their initial appointment that their appointment was on provisional basis and was subject to acquiring the requisite proficiency in local language within the period stipulated by the Rules of 2017 and Regulations of 2010. He also submits that as the petitioners were all given extension of their probation period by the decision taken in the 209th Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Bank beyond the Rules of 2017, the said resolution was retracted in the 212th Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Bank held on 09.12.2020. Following the resolution, the Director of School Education, Government of Mizoram was requested to conduct language test in Class-VIII level for those who were still on probation and not the petitioners. However, test could not be held despite the approval given by the Govt. of Mizoram due to the COVID-19 Pandemic situation in the State. He submits that as per the Regulations of 2010, the probation period of an Office Assistant is 1 (one) year and which can be extended for another 6 (six) months only. The petitioners were given more than 34 months for acquiring language proficiency and moreover there is no provision in the Recruitment Rules of the Bank which provides that language proficiency test is to be conducted by the respondent Bank. At any rate, the petitioners were all given enough time to acquire local language proficiency but as they failed to do so, they had to be terminated from service. The extension of their probation period was purely for their welfare and the same cannot be claimed by the petitioners as a matter of right. Under the circumstance, the learned counsel submits that the writ petitions should be dismissed. 9. The extension of their probation period was purely for their welfare and the same cannot be claimed by the petitioners as a matter of right. Under the circumstance, the learned counsel submits that the writ petitions should be dismissed. 9. The learned counsel in support of his submission relies upon following authorities: (i) Union of India and Another vs. Tulsiram Patel, (1985) 3 SCC 398 (ii) Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. vs. Smt. Sukamani Das, (1999) 7 SCC 298 (iii) Vemareddy Kumaraswamy Reddy and Another vs. State of A.P. (2006) 2 SCC 670 (iv) Competition Commission of India vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC 744 (v) State of Odisha vs. Anup Kumar Senapati and Another, (2019) 19 SCC 626 (vi) Kala Singh alias Gurnam Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2021) 10 SCC 744 10. I have heard the submissions made by the learned counsels for the rival parties and I have perused the materials available on record. 11. From what can be noticed, the controversy in the instant case is in respect of acquiring proficiency in the local language up to the Class-VIII standard for being confirmed against the appointed post. The 3rd Schedule in the Rules of 2017 provides for the proficiency in local language as one of the essential qualification. For the post classified as Officer Junior Management (Scale-I) Group ‘A’ the permissible time for acquiring proficiency in local language is 6 (six) months initially at the time of selection and the same can be extended for another 6 (six) months by the Board and thereafter, for another 6 (six) months’ period by recording reasons in writing. However, such extensions cannot be granted beyond the probation period. As per the Regulations of 2010, more particularly at Clause 8 of Chapter-2, the period of probation in respect of employee in Scale- I of Group ‘A’ is 1 (one) year and which can be extended for a period not exceeding 6 (six) months. In respect of Group ‘B’ or Group ‘C’ except for those promoted from Group ‘C’ to Group ‘B’ the period of probation is also for 1 (one) year and extendable for a period not exceeding 6 (six) months. 12. In respect of Group ‘B’ or Group ‘C’ except for those promoted from Group ‘C’ to Group ‘B’ the period of probation is also for 1 (one) year and extendable for a period not exceeding 6 (six) months. 12. Coming to the facts of the present case, it may be seen that the respondent authorities despite the stipulation in the Rules of 2017 and the Regulations of 2010 have not extended the probation period of the petitioner formally by way of an order or communication. Although, test for the local language proficiency was conducted on 14.11.2018 and thereafter, between 17th to 19th Feb, 2020, the outcome of such tests was not informed to the petitioners. The Board of Directors in its 209th Meeting held on 16.07.2020 resolved to extend the probation period of the petitioners by 6 (six) months w.e.f. 16.07.2020 and also decided that local language proficiency test will be conducted during such extension period and that in the event of failure to qualify the test, the employee concerned will be disqualified from service. This resolution, however, was found to be erroneous and was revoked by the Board of Directors in their 212th Meeting held on 9th December, 2020. This issue was dealt with at Serial No. 23 of the Meeting Minutes and the same may be abstracted hereunder for ready perusal: “23. LOCAL LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY TEST: The Board revisited its decision taken vide Agenda No. 14 in its meeting No. 209 on 16.07.2020 as advised by the sponsor Bank vide Letter No. A&S/RRB/SCK/334 dated 1st December, 2020 and found that the decision was erroneous and resolved to revoke the same. The Board resolved that the Bank will take care of any legal consequences in connection with the Local Language Proficiency Test which may arise in future as the management and executive are acting on behalf of the Bank. Further, the Board discussed the issue thoroughly and accepted the following action plan proposed by the Bank: (i) Appointing Authority will take appropriate action in case of the employees who have not qualified in the Local Language Proficiency Test and completed probation period and maximum extension period of probation in terms of RRB Officers and Employees Service Regulation, 2010. The action taken will be informed to the Board in its next meeting. The action taken will be informed to the Board in its next meeting. (ii) Bank will approach Directorate of School Education, Government of Mizoram to conduct the Local Language Proficiency Test to the employees and officers on probation and who have not studied that language of the state in standard VII or above.” 13. From the above abstract, it can be seen that two things were decided. Firstly, the appointing authority was required to take appropriate action in case of employees who have not qualified the local language proficiency test despite completion of probation period and the maximum extension period permissible under the Regulations of 2010. Secondly, the Bank was required to approach the Directorate of School Education, Govt. of Mizoram with a request to conduct language proficiency test for the employees of the Bank, who were still on probation and those who have not studied the language of the State in Standard-VIII or above. However, despite the concerned decision taken in the 209th Board of Directors Meeting being revoked by the 212th Meeting of the same Board held on 09.12.2020, the communication made to the petitioners on 05.08.2020 informing them that their probation period was extended for another 6 (six) months from 16.07.2020 and that local language proficiency test will be conducted during the extension period was not recalled. Also the decision taken in the 212th Board of Directors Meeting was not communicated or informed to them and they were allowed to continue in their respective posts on probation up to 31.03.2021 as can be seen from the order of termination dated 30.03.2021. Although it is the stand of the respondent Bank that the Bank is not responsible for conducting the test in proficiency of local language but at the same time, from their affidavit, it is clear that they have approached the School Education Department of the State to conduct such tests for their employees. It is further noticed that prior to issuance of the termination order on 30.03.2021 which was to take effect from 31.03.2021, the respondents have not given the petitioners any opportunity or notice of termination which otherwise was stipulated in the offer of appointment that was initially given to them. 14. It is further noticed that prior to issuance of the termination order on 30.03.2021 which was to take effect from 31.03.2021, the respondents have not given the petitioners any opportunity or notice of termination which otherwise was stipulated in the offer of appointment that was initially given to them. 14. In the case of Union of India and Another vs. Tulsiram Patel (supra) held that the object underlying the second proviso to Article 311(2) is public policy, public interest and public good and therefore, the Court must repel the temptation to be carried away by feelings of commiseration and sympathy for those government servants who have been dismissed, removed or reduced in rank by applying the second proviso. However, in the facts of the present case, it may be seen that the respondents by not giving any notice to the petitioners as provided in the order of their initial appointment itself as failed to observe the principles of natural justice and therefore, on this ground alone, the authority relied upon cannot be applied. 15. The case of Chairman, Grid Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (Gridco) and Others (supra) in my considered view has no application to the present case, as the referred case pertains to disputed questions of fact which ordinarily should not be entertained by a writ Court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 16. In Vemareddy Kumaraswamy Reddy and Another (supra), the ratio laid down by the Apex Court was that where language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, Court cannot make any addition or substitution or words, unless otherwise provision stand meaningless or of doubtful meaning. However, in the given facts of the present case, it may be seen that despite the stipulation of the Rules of 2017 and the Regulations of 2010, the respondents have failed to abide by the same by issuing necessary orders or communications formally on the extension or otherwise of the probation period of its employees. In absence of the same, this cannot abruptly end the service of their employees in the manner it was done without even issuing a notice of termination in terms of their appointment orders. As such, the case referred to is found to be not applicable to the given facts and circumstances of the present case. 17. In absence of the same, this cannot abruptly end the service of their employees in the manner it was done without even issuing a notice of termination in terms of their appointment orders. As such, the case referred to is found to be not applicable to the given facts and circumstances of the present case. 17. The case of Competition Commission of India vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Another (supra) is also found to be not applicable having regard to the view already expressed by this Court in respect of the reliance placed to Union of India and Another vs. Tulsiram Patel (supra). 18. The ratio laid down by the Apex Court hat illegality cannot be perpetuated in the case of State of Odisha vs. Anup Kumar Senapati and Another (supra) is also found to be un-applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case, inasmuch as, the respondent Bank has failed to make proper and timely assessment about why proficiency to be acquired by the petitioners as per the stipulation of the Rule of 2017, Regulations of 2010 and the terms and conditions mentioned in their order of appointment. 19. Upon due consideration of the case in its entirety, I am of the considered view that the respondents cannot take the advantage of their own default or untimely action and that the petitioners should be given one more opportunity to show that they have acquired the proficiency required in the local language as stipulated by the Rules and Regulations. 20. The respondents are therefore directed to organize a test for the petitioners which may or may not be along with any other employees who are due to undergo such tests within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is also made clear that if the petitioners fail to qualify themselves in the test to be conducted, they cannot have any claim for reinstatement into service. Therefore, the impugned termination orders dated 29.04.2021 in respect of WP (C) Nos. 63 and 69/2021 and the impugned Orders dated 30.03.2021 in respect of WP (C) Nos. 64, 65, 66, 67 and 68/2021 are hereby set aside. However, the reinstatement of the petitioners will be subject to them qualifying in the test to be conducted, as directed herein above. 21. 63 and 69/2021 and the impugned Orders dated 30.03.2021 in respect of WP (C) Nos. 64, 65, 66, 67 and 68/2021 are hereby set aside. However, the reinstatement of the petitioners will be subject to them qualifying in the test to be conducted, as directed herein above. 21. It is further provided herein that in the event, the petitioners are able to qualify themselves in the test to be conducted, they will not be entitled to any back wages for the period spent in the interregnum on the principles of “no work, no pay.” 22. With the above observations and directions, all the writ petition stands disposed of.