LALRINPUII Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVT OF MIZORAM, AIZAWL
LAWS(GAU)-2018-6-110
HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Decided on June 22,2018

Lalrinpuii Appellant
VERSUS
State Of Mizoram Represented By Chief Secretary To Govt Of Mizoram, Aizawl Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Michael Zothankhuma, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. A.R Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, learned Government Advocate.
(2.) The petitioners case is that despite the petitioners and the private respondents being placed in the common inter-se-seniority list of officers under SCERT under the same cadre and pay scale, vide Notification dated 27.04.2015, the petitioners have been given lesser avenues of promotion than the private respondents. The petitioners thus pray for declaring the impugned Mizoram Education and Human Resources Department (Group A posts in District Centre for English) Recruitment Rules, 1987 and Mizoram Education and Human Resources Department (Group A posts in District Centre for English) Recruitment (First Amendment) Rules, 1988, as illegal, ultra vires and unconstitutional, in so far as it does not include the petitioners and other similarly situated Group-A Officers in the feeder posts for promotion to the post of Deputy Director (Language Promotion).
(3.) The petitioners counsel submits that the petitioner No. 1 is an Audio Producer, while the petitioner No. 2 is a Vocational Guidance Officer. They have been appointed to the said posts under a different set of rules, while the petitioners, who are Tutors, were appointed under the Mizoram Education and Human Resources Department (Group A posts in District Centre for English) Recruitment Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 1987 Rules) and the Mizoram Education and Human Resources Department (Group A posts in District Centre for English) Recruitment (First Amendment) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 1988 Rules). He submits that as per the common final seniority list of officers under the SCERT, having the pay scale of PB-3 Rs. 15600+5400 GP, the petitioner Nos. 1 & 2 have been placed at Serial No. 7 & 8 respectively, while respondent Nos. 5 & 6 have been placed at Serial No. 9 & 11. He submits that in view of the petitioners and the private respondents being in the same common seniority list, the petitioners and the private respondents are in the same grade/cadre and accordingly, the petitioners should also be given the same avenues of promotion as given to the Tutors for promotion to the post of Chief Tutor, which has been re-designated as Deputy Director (Language Promotion).;


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