JUDGMENT
B.P. Katakey, J.
1. The petitioner by this present writ petition has challenged the order of termination dated 3.11.2002 (Annexure 26) issued by the Secretary, Mizoram Board of School Education cancelling the order of appointment as Computer Operator.
2. I have heard Mr. Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Lalramzauva, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and also Mr. N. Sailo, learned State counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
3. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition is that there was a selection for appointment to the post of Computer Operator on 21.7.1999 wherein 10 persons including the present writ petitioner were interviewed. The selection committee on the basis of the said interview selected one Shri Lalremsiama against the said post and prepared await list wherein the name of the present writ petitioner appeared at serial No. 1. It was stipulated in the said Selection Committee proceeding that the said Wait list was prepared in the event of inability of the selected candidates to join in the post and if any other post of Computer Operator is created in future. The Selection Committee has fixed the life time of the said panel for one year. The person selected was accordingly appointed who joined his service as computer operator. Since there was no other post of computer operator available at that time, the petitioner was appointed on ad hoc basis vide order dtd. 14.12.1999 as P. A. to the Secretary, initially for a period of six months. The said appointment was extended from time to time by issuing various orders. Thereafter, a post of Computer Operator was created by the Board vide order dated 23.5.2001 and against that post the petitioner who was selected vide order dated 21.7.1999 was appointed on ad hoc basis for a period of six months, vide order dated 15.10.2001, after expiry of the validity of the said select list. The petitioner thereafter, filed an application for regularisation of her service as Computer Operator enclosing therewith a performance report, in respect of her work, issued by the Director (Academic) of the Board. The Selection Board upon consideration of the application and performance report and the materials, in its meeting dated 25.8.2003 decided to regularise the service of the petitioner as computer operator. The Secretary of the Board pursuant to the said decision of the selection committee issued order dated 29.8.2003 appointing the petitioner as Computer Operator. The Selection Committee in its meeting dated 23.10.2003 while considering the matter of confirmation of the minutes of the earlier meeting dated 25.8.03, has deferred the matter regarding the regularisation of the petitioner’s service as Computer Operator till 31.10.2003, on which date the selection committee after due deliberation decided to cancel the Order of regularisation and appointment of the petitioner as Computer Operator dated 29.8.2003. Hence the present writ petition.
4. Mr. Raju learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was appointed as Computer Operator, on the basis of selection made by the selection Committee and therefore her entry into .service cannot be treated as back door entry. According to the learned counsel as at the relevant point of time no second post of computer operator was available, she was appointed as P. A. to the Secretary and as soon as the post of Computer Operator was created she was appointed on ad hoc basis on 15.10.2001 on the basis of selection made on 21.7.1999. Though the petitioner was appointed as P.A. to Secretary, she has in fact discharged her duty as computer operator. According to the petitioner since she was serving from 14.12.1999 she filed application for regularisation of her service on 11.8.2003 and the selection committee upon consideration of all the aspects of the matter recommended for regularisation of the service of the petitioner as Computer Operator. The Board accepting the recommendation of the selection committee appointed the petitioner on 29.8.2003 and, therefore, according to the learned counsel it is not a case of back door entry but she was appointed though on ad hoc basis, on the basis of selection which was made in the year 1999. Further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even assuming that she is not entitled to be appointed as Computer Operator on the basis of selection held in the year 1999, she having been appointed, on regularisation, on the basis of the recommendation of the selection Committee on 29.8.2003, she is at least entitled to a notice before the authority cancels her appointment. According to the counsel as the order of cancellation invites is adverse civil consequences and it amounts to taking away the livelihood, the authority must adhere to the basic principles of natural justice before cancellation of the appointment and therefore the order of cancellation dated 3.1.2003 passed by the authority without issuing any notice whatsoever is bad in law.
5. Mr. Lalramzauva, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4, relying on the affidavit-in-opposition, has submitted that the petitioner cannot be appointed as the Computer Operator on the basis of the selection held on 21.7.1999 as that selection was made for the purpose of selecting candidates for one post of Computer Operator only. The petitioner being a wait listed candidate cannot have any right for appointment in the post of Computer Operator. The selected candidate, who was selected by the Selection Committee, for the post of Computer Operator having been appointed, the said select list gets automatically exhausted even if the validity of the select list was for one year. Further submission of Mr. Lalramzauva, the learned counsel is that as no other post of Computer Operator, was available at that point of time, apart from the post for which selection was made, the petitioner cannot be appointed against the post of Computer Operator subsequently created. Moreover, the newly created post does not have the approval of the finance department. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the selection committee has rightly taken the decision for cancellation of the order of appointment more so when the petitioners appointment by way of regularisation was not legal and valid.
6. Mr. N. Sailo, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2 has supported the point of law raised by Mr. Lalramzauva learned counsel for respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
7. I have carefully considered the submissions and also perused the statements made in the writ petition, the affidavit-in-opposition as well as annexures appended thereto.
8. It is evident from the proceeding of the Selection Committee meeting dated 21.7.1999 that the selection was held for filling up of a single post of Computer Operator. The Selection Committee has recommended one, namely, Lalremsiama Ralte for appointment as Computer Operator and has prepared a waiting list wherein the petitioner’s name appeared at serial No. 1 which does not mean that the petitioner shall have right to get appointment. The life of a select list is fixed for one year. Waiting list was prepared by the authority for the purpose of future vacancy or if the selected candidate does not accept the appointment. In the instant case admittedly the writ petitioner was appointed on 15.10.2001 as Computer Operator on the basis of selection held on 1.7.1999 and the said appointment was on ad hoc basis and for a fixed period of time, which was however, extended from time to time. There cannot be any appointment on the basis of the said select list even if it is taken that the said select list was for the purpose of filling up of future vacancy, as the validity of the said select list was over on 20.7.2000. Moreover, the selection dated 21.7.1999 being for filling up one post of Computer Operator, the said select list get exhausted as soon as the persons selected has accepted the appointment. The wait listed candidates, i.e., the petitioner cannot have any right to claim appointment on the basis of his said selection.
9. Be that as it may, the Selection Committee on the basis of the application for regularisation of the petitioner in its meeting dated 5.8.2003 recommended the case for regularisation of the petitioner’s service as Computer Operator and accordingly the petitioner was appointed as the Computer Operator on 29.8.2003. The Selection Committee thereafter in its meeting dated 31.10.2003 has decided to cancel the said order of appointment dated 29.8.2003 and the reasons for taking such decision have been stated in the affidavit filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4. The Secretary of the Board in accordance with the decision of the Selection Committee cancelled the order of appointment with immediate effect. It is not in dispute in the present case that the order of cancellation dated 3.11.2003 was issued without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without affording her any opportunity of being heard and to show cause why the appointment dated 29.8.2003 should not be cancelled. As the authority once decided to regularize the service of the petitioner and in pursuant to which order of appointment dated 29.8.2003 was issued, the authority before taking any decision for cancellation of such appointment is duty bound to issue notice to the petitioner to show cause otherwise it would be in complete violation of the basic principles of natural justice, since such order of cancellation invites adverse panel consequences and also amounts to depriving the petitioner from her livelihood.
10. That being the position I set aside the order of cancellation dated 3.11.2003 issued by the Secretary of the Board. It is open to the Board to issue notice to the writ petitioner to show cause as to why the order of appointment dated 29.8.2003 should not be cancelled stating therein the grounds for such proposed cancellation. In the event of issuing such notice by the Board, the petitioner will be at liberty to file her show cause within a period of one months from the date of issuance of such show cause notice. The Board thereafter, shall take a final decision in the matter and pass order in accordance with law. Since the petitioner is presently working as Computer Operator, in terms of the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner shall continue to do so till a final decision is taken by the Board as indicated above.
11. The writ petition is therefore, allowed as indicated above. No costs.