Decided on March 05,2018

Seipuia And 10 Ors Appellant
State Of Mizoram And 45 Ors Respondents


S. Serto, J. - (1.) This is a Review petition filed under Section 114 and Order 47 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking review of the Judgment & Order dated 31.05.2013, passed by this Court in WP(C) No. 57/2012.
(2.) Though under the relevant Rules, a Review petition has to be placed before the same Judge, permission was sought from the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court to place the matter before any other Judge, sitting at Aizawl Bench. The Hon'ble Chief Justice granted permission to do so vide his Order dated 06.10.2016. Accordingly, the matter has been placed before me for hearing and disposal.
(3.) A writ petition was filed before this Court being WP(C) No. 57/2012, challenging the seniority list of High School Teachers under the Government of Mizoram, which was notified vide Office Order dated 19.03.2007 on the ground that the seniority of the High School Teachers should have been fixed based on their date of birth. After the parties were heard, the judgment sought to be reviewed was passed and in the said judgment, Government of Mizoram was directed to re- determine the inter-se-seniority of the Teachers of provincialised Schools in accordance to the provisions of the Provincialisation Rules and the criteria adopted by the State Government within a period of 4 (four) months. The operative portions of the judgment i.e., para 18, 19 & 20 are reproduced below: "18. It is true that the inter-se-seniority list was published on 19.3.2007. But petitioner has asserted that no copy of such seniority list was furnished to him and that he became aware of it only in the month of May, 2012. Immediately after he collected a copy of the seniority list, he submitted a representation and then filed the writ petition. The private respondents, despite service of notice, have not come forward to contest the case. Therefore, only on the basis of the statement of the state respondents that a copy of the provisional seniority list was given to all concerned officials, the petitioner cannot be disentitled from maintaining the present challenge. It is also true that challenge to a gradation list should not be entertained after a reasonable period unless sufficient ground can be shown by the party challenging it. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that petitioner has shown sufficient cause which prevented him from challenging the gradation list earlier. Accordingly, the challenge made to the gradation list is entertained. 19. The stand taken by the state respondents that while fixing the inter-se- seniority of the teachers of the provincialised High Schools, the date of entry into service in the deficit/aided schools p W.P.(C) No. 57 of 2012 Page 17 of 18 provincialisation was taken into consideration is contrary to Rule 7 (b) of the Provincialisation Rules. Petitioner's assertion that the schools of the petitioner and the private respondents were provincialised with effect from the same date i.e. 1.12.1991, which is based on the documents on record, has remained uncontroverted. If that be the position, namely the date of entry into Government service is the same, seniority of the teachers is required to be determined on the basis of their respective dates of birth as per criteria adopted by the Government which is in tune with the overall scheme of the Provincialisation Rules. Fixation of inter-se- seniority without conforming to the above requirements has vitiated the inter-se-seniority list dated 19.03.2007 in so far teachers of provincialised High schools are concerned. 20. That being the position, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner has made out a case for interference by the Court. Since under the Provincialisation Rules, Director of School Education, Mizoram is the authority to determine the inter se-seniority of the teachers of the provincialised schools, the said authority is directed to re-determine the inter- se-seniority of the teachers of the provincialised schools in accordance with the provisions of the Provincialisation Rules and the criteria adopted by the State Government. The said exercise shall be carried out in accordance with law within a period of four months from W.P.(C) No. 57 of 2012 Page 18 of 18 the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. Since there is no dispute to the seniority position of the teachers of the Government schools which is upto the seniority position 151, the State respondents may proceed with the filling up of the 55 posts of Headmaster of Government High Schools from the said seniority list dated 19.03.2007 from amongst the teachers of the Government Schools, whose seniority position is not disputed.";

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.