Dismissed

Sh. Fc. Hmingthanmawia and 19 Ors. v. The State of Mizoram r/b the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram and 18 Ors.

Gauhati HC12 Feb 2026WP(C)/94/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged MPSC recommendations appointing B.E. (Civil) holders to Surveyor posts, contending they lacked a separate one-year survey course required by the 2021 Recruitment Rules. The court held that where the B.E. (Civil) curriculum itself includes one year of surveying, candidates are eligible; no separate course is needed. Writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None granted to petitioners; writ petition dismissed and stay on appointments pursuant to the impugned notification vacated.

Sh. Fc. Hmingthanmawia and 19 Ors. Vs The State of… — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2026)

¶1

Page No.# 1/24

¶2

GAHC030005262025

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/94/2025

¶5

Sh. FC. Hmingthanmawia and 19 Ors. S/o FC Lalmuana R/o Thingsai, Hnahthial District. 2: Sh. Lalchhanhima S/o Lalbiakzuala R/o Maubawk Aizawl.

¶6

3: Sh. David Lalhmangaiha Pachuau S/o Lalthanhlira R/o Venghlui Aizawl.

¶7

4: Sh. Zoremmawia S/o Lalngilneiha R/o Kolasib Diakkawn Kolasib District.

¶8

5: Sh. H. Vanlalremruata S/o Vanlalchaka (L) R/o Kolasib Venglai Kolasib District.

¶9

6: Smt. Lalhriatzuali D/o Malsawmtluanga R/o ITI Veng Aizawl.

¶10

7: Smt. Lucy Ramnunsangi D/o PC Thanzama R/o South Sabual Mamit District.

¶11

8: Smt. Lalngaihsaki

¶12

D/o Lalparliana Sailo (L) R/o Venghlui Aizawl.

¶13

Page No.# 2/24

¶14

9: Sh. Vanlalthlana S/o Lalbiakkima R/o Chanmari Aizawl.

¶15

10: Sh. Jacob C. Laltanpuia S/o C. Zothankima R/o Electric Veng Hnahthial Hnahthial District.

¶16

11: Sh. H. Ramtharnghaka S/o H. Thantluanga R/o Leisang Veng Serchhip Serchhip District.

¶17

12: Sh. Samuel Lalruatfela S/o K. Rosanga R/o Salem Veng Aizawl.

¶18

13: Sh. Lawmsangkima S/o RC Lalnghakliana R/o Mission Veng Aizawl.

¶19

14: Sh. B. Laldawngliana S/o B. Zirkunga R/o Hrangchalkawn Lunglei Lunglei District.

¶20

15: Sh. Samuel Lalhmangaihzuala S/o F. Chaltianga R/o Salem Veng Aizawl.

¶21

16: Sh. H. Lalremtluanga S/o Vanromawia R/o Zotlang Veng Aizawl.

¶22

17: Sh. Isak Lalhunmawia Sailo S/o Lalhmuzuala Sailo R/o Ramthar Veng Lunglei Lunglei District.

¶23

18: Smt. Saimawii D/o Malsawmtluanga R/o ITI Veng Aizawl.

¶24

19: Sh. Zothanmawia S/o Siamkunga R/o Bethlehem Veng Aizawl.

¶25

Page No.# 3/24

¶26

20: Sh. Lalchhandama Pachuau S/o S. Lalmuankima (L) R/o Tanhril Veng Aizawl VERSUS

¶27

The State of Mizoram r/b the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram and 18 Ors. Aizawl. 2:The Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram Land Revenue and Settlement Dept. Aizawl. 3:The Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram DP and AR Aizawl. 4:The Mizoram Public Service Commission r/b its Chairman MINECO Khatla Aizawl. 5:The Controller of Examinations Mizoram Public Service Commission MINECO Khatla Aizawl. 6:Sh. Lalramngheta S/o L Rochhunga Ralte R/o 153 BRTF Road Champhai Zotlang Champhai Mizoram 796321. 7:Sh. S. Zahmingthanga S/o S. Ropianga (L) R/o 49 Kawlbem Venglai Kawlbem Presbyterian English School tlang Saitual Mizoram 796290. 8:Sh. K. Lalnunsanga S/o K. Lalzarliana

¶28

Page No.# 4/24

¶29

R/o V-34/3 Salem Veng Aizawl Mizoram 796005.

¶30

9:Smt. Lalthafamkimi D/o Lalramtiama R/o B--67 Tuikual South Tuikual South B Mual Aizawl Mizoram 796001.

¶31

10:Sh. Nangsuanpiang S/o Kham Do Pauva

¶32

R/o V-75 Bawngkawn Hmar Veng Bawngkawn Aizawl Mizoram 796014.

¶33

11:Sh. C. Lalramlawma S/o C. Rinliana R/o 38 PHC Road Champhai Vengthar Champhai Mizoram 796321.

¶34

12:Sh. T. Vanlalzara S/o T. Thangtinkhuma R/o YA-18/1 Tatkawng Veng Chaltlang Aizawl Mizoram 796012.

¶35

13:Sh. Vanlaldika S/o Saikaia R/3 Vhn-07 Pangzawl Venghlun

¶36

Page No.# 5/24

¶37

Hnahthial Mizoram 796571. 14:Sh. C. Lalhmangaihzuala S/o C. Malsawma R/o CNB K45 Chaltlang Lily Veng Aizawl Mizoram 796012. 15:Sh. David C. Lalawmpuia S/o Lalremruata (L) R/o B-321 Kawn Veng Darlawn Mizoram 796111.

¶38

16:Smt. PC. Lalhriatpuii D/o PC. Lalhmingthanga (L) R/o A-398 Thuampui Aizawl Mizoram 796001.

¶39

17:Sh. Lalhumhima S/o Lalbiaknema Ro D/CH-27 Dinthar Dinthar Dam Phei Aizawl Mizoram 796001.

¶40

18:Sh. Vanlalawmpuia S/o Lalbiaknia R/o Chaltlang Aizawl.

¶41

19:Sh. MS Dawngliana S/o R. Lalnunmawia R/o Ramthar Aizawl

¶42

Page No.# 6/24

¶43

Advocates for the petitioner : Mr. A R Malhotra Advocates for the respondents : Ms. Linda L Fambawl, Addl. Advocate General,

¶44

Mr J.C. Lalnunsanga,

¶45

Mr. Joseph L Renthlei

¶46

BEFORE

¶47

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA

¶48

Date on which judgment is reserved : 09.02.2026 Date of pronouncement of judgment : 13.02.2026 Whether the pronouncement is of the : No. operative part of the judgment ? Whether the full judgment has been : Yes pronounced?

¶49

JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)

¶50

(Mridul Kumar Kalita, J)

¶51

1) Heard Mr. A R Malhotra, the learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Linda L Fambawl, the learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, Mr J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 & 5 as well as Mr. Joseph L Renthlei, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 6 to 17.

¶52

2) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, namely, F C Hmingthanmawia & 19 Others praying for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus, certiorari and/or any other appropriate writ(s)/directions or order. The petitioners have impugned the

¶53

Page No.# 7/24

¶54

notification bearing Memo No. TECHNICAL/1/2024-MPSC(CON) dated 08.07.2025 as well as notification bearing Memo No. TECHNICAL/1/2024MPSC(CON) dated 10.07.2025 as well as notification bearing Memo No. TECHNICAL/1/2024-MPSC(CON) dated 30.07.2025, whereby, the respondent Nos. 6 to 17 were recommended for appointment to the post of Surveyor under the Land Revenue & Settlement Department, Govt. of Mizoram, along with other selected candidates.

¶55

3) The facts relevant for consideration of the instant writ petition, in brief, are that the respondent No. 5, namely, The Controller of Examination, MPSC, MINECO, Khatla, Aizawl had issued an advertisement bearing No. 5/20242025 on 09.07.2024 for recruitment to a number of different posts under different departments of the Government. The said advertisement also included 15 posts of Surveyor, out of which one post was reserved for PWbD (People with Benchmark Disabilities). The educational qualification required for the post of Surveyor as stated in the advertisement was “Bachelor’s Degree who have completed 1 (One) year survey course”.

¶56

4) The Petitioners, being graduates and having completed one year survey course from Government recognised university, had applied for the said post pursuant to the advertisement. However, they were not selected for interview after appearing in the written examination.

¶57

5) Mr. A. R. Malhotra, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, DP&AR, Aizawl (respondent No. 3) by Notification No. A. 12018/10/2014-P&AR(GSW) dated

¶58

Page No.# 8/24

¶59

09.11.2021, in exercise of powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, had made rules regulating the method of recruitment to the post of Surveyor under the Land Revenue & Settlement Department, Govt. of Mizoram. The said rules are known as Mizoram Land Revenue & Settlement Department (Group ‘B’ post) Recruitment Rules, 2021 ( hereinafter referred to as the Recruitment Rules, 2021).

¶60

6) He submits that as per column No. 7 of the Schedule to the said rules, the educational qualification and other qualifications required for direct recruitment to the post of Surveyor is given as below:-

¶61

“i) Bachelor’s degree from a recognized University who have completed at least 1 (one) year survey course from any Government recognized institution.

¶62

ii) Basic knowledge of computer application equivalent to course on Computer Concepts (CCC) of National Institute of Electronics and Information Technology (NIELIT)_or Diploma in Computer Application/Certificate in Computer Application from institutions recognized by the Mizoram State Council of Technical Education or such other courses of the level as determined by the Government from time to time.

¶63

iii) Working knowledge of Mizo language at least Middle School standard.”

¶64

Page No.# 9/24

¶65

7) The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners as well as private respondent Nos. 6 to 17 appeared in the written technical competitive examination conducted by respondent No. 5 on 21.11.2024 & 22.11.2024. However, by the Notification No. TECHNICAL/1/2024-MPSC(CON)/4 dated 07.04.2025, the names of the candidates shortlisted for further screening were notified. He submits that the names of the petitioners were not there in the aforesaid notification. However, the names of the respondent Nos. 6 to 17 appeared in the said notification. Later on, by two subsequent impugned notifications dated 08.07.2025 as well as 10.07.2025, the results of the written competitive examination for recruitment to the post of Surveyor were declared, whereby 28 candidates were declared to have been qualified for personal interviews. The names of the respondent Nos. 6 to 17 appeared in the said notifications. The interview was accordingly conducted during 28.07.2025 to 30.07.2025 and ultimately, by notification No. TECHNICAL/1/2024-MPSC(CON) dated 30.07.2025, the respondent No. 5 declared final results in the order of merit, whereby 14 candidates including the respondent Nos. 6 to 17 were recommended for appointment to the posts of Surveyor.

¶66

8) The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondent Nos. 6 to 17 are all graduates in Engineering but have not completed at least one year survey course from a Government recognised institution and as such, they are not qualified for appointment to the post of Surveyor in terms of the Mizoram Land Revenue & Settlement Department (Group ‘B’ post) Recruitment Rules, 2021. The learned counsel for the

¶67

Page No.# 10/24

¶68

petitioners has submitted that the respondent Nos. 4 & 5 had, by flouting the eligibility criteria stated in the aforesaid rules, illegally included the names of respondent Nos. 6 to 17 in the impugned notifications.

¶69

9) He submits that a plain reading of the relevant provisions of Mizoram Land Revenue & Settlement Department (Group ‘B’ post) Recruitment Rules, 2021 as well as the Advertisement No. 5/2024 dated 09.07.2024 clearly shows that educational qualification required for direct recruitment to the post of Surveyor under the Land Revenue & Settlement Department, Govt. of Mizoram is the Bachelor’s degree from a recognized university who have completed at least one year survey course in a Government recognized institution , which none of the respondent Nos. 6 to 17 possessed.

¶70

10) He submits that the eligibility criteria which has been laid down statutorily could not have been relaxed or diluted by the respondent Nos. 1 to 5, without amending the Recruitment Rules, 2021 and without issuing any corrigendum or modification to the Advertisement dated 09.07.2024. He submits that by allowing the respondent Nos. 6 to 17, who were only possessing the degree of Bachelor in Engineering without having completed at least one year survey course from any Government recognized institution , the other persons who had not applied for the post but were having the Bachelor of Engineering degree had been discriminated against. As such, he submits that there is a violation of the constitutional mandate contained in Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶71

Page No.# 11/24

¶72

11) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the Recruitment Rules, 2021, for 10% of posts of Surveyor-I available in the Land Revenue & Settlement Department, Govt. of Mizoram, the candidates possessing Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) from recognized institutions are also eligible. However, no such concession was made in connection with the post of Surveyor. Hence, he submits that by clear language of the statute, the persons who are possessing only graduation degree in Engineering i.e. B.E. (Civil) have been impliedly excluded from the eligibility criteria for recruitment to the post of Surveyor. He submits that the additional requirement of one year survey course is applicable even in the case of candidates who possess a degree in Engineering i.e. B.E. Civil.

¶73

12) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when the Recruitment Rules, 2021 as well as the Advertisement mentions a particular qualification for appointment to the post of Surveyor and when by appointing respondent Nos. 6 to 17, the said rules as well as the Advertisement have been disregarded, it is not a matter only between appointing authority and appointee concerned, the aggrieved are all those who had similar or even a better qualification than those who are recommended for appointment but who had not applied for the post because they did not possess the qualification mentioned in the advertisement. He submits that on plain reading of the recruitment rules it appears that the statute has prescribed educational qualification for Surveyor as well as Surveyor-I post and by providing the eligibility criteria of Bachelor’s degree from a recognized institution who have completed at least one year survey course from any Government recognized institution.

¶74

Page No.# 12/24

¶75

The rules create a distinct class and it is the aspirants falling in such distinct class alone which may apply to the said post and who may be considered for recommendation or appointment.

¶76

13) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the law is well settled that an appointment made contrary to the statute/statutory rules would be void. He also submits that had it been the intention of the Government to allow the candidates having Bachelor of Civil Engineering degree who have not completed at least one year of survey course from a Government recognized institute to apply for the post of Surveyor, it would have specifically mentioned in the 2021 Rules itself that Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) is an alternative eligible criteria as has been done in the case of Surveyor-I post However, when the rules do not specifically provide for such a contingency, the same may not be allowed by going against the recruitment rules. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioners has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Jomon K.K vs. Shajimon P. & Ors., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 711 .

¶77

14) He submits that the essential educational qualification for recruitment to a post cannot be condoned and when such a qualification is not satisfied, the same cannot be rectified. He also submits that an appointment which is contrary to the statute/statutory rules would be void in law and such an illegality cannot be regularised, particularly when the statute in no unmistakable terms lays down the eligibility criteria . In support of his submission, he has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Pramod Kumar vs. U.P Secondary Education Services Commission

¶78

Page No.# 13/24

¶79

& Ors., reported in (2008) 7 SCC 153 .

¶80

15) The learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that merely because the petitioners participated in the written examination would not estop them from challenging the illegality in the appointment of respondent Nos. 6 to 17. He submits that by agreeing to participate in the selection process, the petitioners only accepted the prescribed procedure and not the illegality. He submits that the fact that the petitioners participated in the written examination conducted by respondent No. 5 for appointment to the post of Surveyor, in itself, would not estop them from raising the question of want of eligibility of the respondent Nos. 6 to 17 for applying to the post of Surveyor. He submits that the principle of estoppel cannot be override law and therefore, the petitioners are not estopped from questioning the illegality in recommending the names of respondent Nos. 6 to 17 for appointment to the post of Surveyor. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the following rulings :-

¶81

(1) Dr. (Major) Meeta Sahai vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2019) 20 SCC 17.

¶82

(2) Krishna Rai (Dead) Through Legal Representatives & Ors. vs. Banaras Hindu University Through Registrar & Ors., reported in (2022) 8 SCC 713.

¶83

16) The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the principle that when the candidate appears at the examination without objection and he

¶84

Page No.# 14/24

¶85

is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded , is not applicable in the instant case, inasmuch as, the writ petitioners are not aggrieved by either any of the clauses of the advertisement or the Recruitment Rules, 2021. He submits that the cause of action for this writ petition has arisen only when the persons, who do not fulfill the essential qualifications, were included in the select list. Hence, they are not estopped from challenging the select list. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Mukul Kumar Tyagi vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors ., reported in (2020) 4 SCC 86 .

¶86

17) He submits that in the instant case, the State respondents (respondent Nos. 1 to 3) have , by clarification sent to respondent No. 5, stated that the degree of Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) from a recognised University would also be regarded as eligible for applying to the post of Surveyor. However, he submits that the same could not have been done without amending the rules. He submits that the statutory rules shall have primacy over executive instructions and the eligibility criteria may have to conform to what has been provided in the rules and not to the private communication between the State respondents and respondent No. 5. He further submits that it is a settled principle of service jurisprudence that in the event of a conflict between a statement in the advertisement and services regulation, the latter shall prevail. He submits that no executive instructions may substitute the clear and unambiguous provision of a statutory rule. In support of his submission, he has cited a ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Employees’ State Insurance Corporation vs.

¶87

Page No.# 15/24

¶88

Union of India & Ors ., reported in (2022) 11 SCC 392 .

¶89

18) On the other hand, Ms. Linda L. Fambawl, the learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for respondent No. 3 has submitted that candidatures of those candidates who possessed B.E. (Civil Certificate) were accepted for the post of Surveyor, as per the clarification of the State Government since one year survey course was included in B.E. (Civil course), therefore, any candidate possessing the degree of B.E. (Civil) from a recognised university conforms to the eligibility criteria for the post of Surveyor as prescribed in the 2021 Recruitment Rules.

¶90

19) She submits that the respondent No. 3 has clarified by I.D. No. GSW19/2024/1179 dated 06.09.2024 that the B.E. (Civil) will be accepted as prescribed qualification for direct recruitment to the post of Surveyor provided that the course of study includes a one year survey course as a subject. She submits that a plain reading of the 2021 Recruitment Rules does not exclude the candidates who are having B.E. (Civil) degree from a recognised university if their curriculum demonstrates that it includes one year survey course . Hence, she submits that there has been no violation of any statutory rules by recommending the names of respondent Nos. 6 to 17 for appointment to the post of Surveyor. She therefore prays for dismissing the instant writ petition.

¶91

20) On the other hand, Mr. J. C. Lalnunsanga, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 4 & 5 has submitted that the respondent Nos. 5 had sought a clarification regarding candidature of certain candidates who

¶92

Page No.# 16/24

¶93

possess B.E. (Civil Certificate) on 19.08.2024 from the Government and the Government by its Letter dated 06.09.2024 clarified that the B.E. (Civil Certificate) would be accepted since one year survey course was included in B.E. (Civil) course. He submits that no illegality or violation of any statutory rules has been committed by the respondents in the recruitment process to the post of Surveyor by letting the holders of B.E. (Civil) Certificate to appear in such examination since one year survey course was included in B.E. (Civil) course and therefore, he submits that denying such a candidate from appearing in the recruitment process would have been in gross violation of statutory rules.

¶94

21) He also submits that in the case of appointment to a Government post , it is the employer, i.e. the Government who is best suited to decide the eligibility criteria of the candidates to be appointed to a Government post. He submits that unless oblique motives or miscarriage of justice are there, the Court should not interfere in the decision of the Government. He submits that if there is an ambiguity in the advertisement, the appointing authority is to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the condition of the advertisement . He submits that it is not for the Court, in the course of judicial review to sit in the chair of appointing authority to decide what is best for the employer and interpret the conditions of the advertisement contrary to the plain language of the same. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 4 & 5 has cited the following rulings: -

¶95

(1) Maharashtra Public Service Commission vs. Sandeep Shriram

¶96

Page No.# 17/24

¶97

Warade & Ors ., reported in (2019) 6 SCC 362.

¶98

(2) Pradeep Kumar Rai & Ors. vs. Dinesh Kumar Pandey & Ors., reported in (2015) 11 SCC 493.

¶99

22) Mr. Joseph L. Renthlei, the learned counsel for the private respondents has submitted that the Recruitment Rules, 2021 as well as the advertisement issued by the respondents do not contemplate a mandatory separate one year course from a Government recognised institute in addition to Bachelor’s degree from a recognised university. He submits that on the plain reading of the rules as well as the eligibility criteria clause given in the advertisement dated 09.07.2024, what is required for a candidate to be eligible for applying to the post of Surveyor is to have a Bachelor’s degree who have completed one year survey course .

¶100

23) He submits that if the Bachelor’s degree itself contains one year survey course , there is no necessity of undergoing a separate one year survey course. He submits that since the course of Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) contains one year survey course in the B.E.(Civil) course itself, the candidates possessing B.E. (Civil) qualifications would be eligible for applying to the post of Surveyor. He submits that it would be illogical to insist that the candidates possessing B.E. (Civil) qualification to undergo again one year course of Surveyor when they had already undergone such a course while pursuing their B.E. Civil Engineering course.

¶101

24) He submits that a plain reading of the Recruitment Rules, 2021 as well as

¶102

Page No.# 18/24

¶103

the educational qualification for applying to the post of Surveyor as mentioned in the Advertisement dated 09.07.2024 leaves no room that the one year survey course need not be a separate course, more so, if the Bachelor course itself contains the one year survey course. He submits that the candidates who possessed a higher qualification than the qualification stated in the eligibility for a particular post cannot be excluded from applying thereto, unless there is a specific exclusion clause to that effect in the rules as well as in the advertisement.

¶104

25) He submits that it is a well settled principle that the Court must interpret the provisions of a statute upon a certain object of legislation through the medium of authoritative forms in which they express. He submits that it is well settled that the Court , while interpreting the provisions of the statute, assign its ordinary meaning to the words used in the statute. He submits that in the 2021 Recruitment Rules as well as in the advertisement dated 09.07.2024, there is no mention about undergoing a separate one year survey course from any recognised institution if the Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) course itself contains the one year survey course. In support of his submission, he has cited the ruling of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Through Director of Income Tax vs. Tata Chemicals Limited, reported in (2014) 6 SCC 335 .

¶105

26) He submits that there is no mention of any word like “separately” in between the words “have” and “ completed” in the eligibility criteria mentioned in the Recruitment Rules, 2021 to the post of Surveyor. He submits that the omission of a word in a particular rule may play an

¶106

Page No.# 19/24

¶107

important role and the intention of the legislature must be, as is well known , gathered from the word used in the statute at the first instance and only when such a rule would give rise to anomalous situations may the Court take recourse to purposive construction. He submits that in the instant case, the plain meaning of the words used in the rules describing the eligibility criteria for applying to the post of Surveyor does not exclude a candidate possessing a Bachelor degree of Engineering (Civil). Hence, he submits that the writ petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed.

¶108

27) He further submits that the petitioners apart from challenging the notifications which have recommended the respondent Nos. 6 to 17, for appointment to the post of Surveyor have not prayed for any other relief inasmuch as they were found unsuccessful in the written examination. He submits that the syllabus of B.E. (Civil) course contains one year extensive course in surveying and the said syllabus is more extensive than the syllabus for recruitment examination to the post of Surveyor under the Land Revenue & Settlement Department. Under such circumstances, he submits that this writ petition does not have any merit and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶109

28) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for both sides and have gone through the materials available on record. I have also gone through the rulings cited by the learned counsel for all the parties in support of their respective submissions.

¶110

Page No.# 20/24

¶111

29) The bone of contention in this writ petition is mainly as to whether the private respondents No. 6 to 17 conform to the eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of Surveyor, in terms of the provisions of Recruitment Rules, 2021.

¶112

30) The schedule to the Mizoram Land Revenue & Settlement Department (Group ‘B’ post) Recruitment Rules, 2021 provides for, inter alia, the following eligibility criteria for the post of Surveyor-“Bachelor’s degree from a recognized university who have completed at least 1 (one) year survey course from any Government recognized institution.”

¶113

31) The private respondents No. 16 to 17 have contended that all of them have successfully completed the course of Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) and in the said course extensive syllabus on survey course for 1 (one) year has been included. The question to be decided in this writ petition as to whether the Recruitment Rules, 2021 mandates completion of a separate 1 (one) year survey course from any Government recognized institution under all circumstances. It appears that the query in this respect was posed by the Joint Controller of Examination, Mizoram Public Service Commission to the Govt. of Mizoram in the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms (General Service Wings) on 19^th August, 2024, and in response to the said query the Government by its Letter dated 06.09.2024 had informed the Secretary, The Mizoram Public Service Commission that the qualification of Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) is acceptable for direct recruitment to the post of Surveyor, provided that 1 (one) year survey course is included as one of its subject.

¶114

Page No.# 21/24

¶115

32) The contention of State Government as well as Mizoram Public Service Commission is that the 1 (one) year survey course is included in the B.E (Civil) course, hence, a candidate possessing the degree of B.E (Civil) is qualified to be appointed as a surveyor in terms of the provisions contained in Recruitment Rules, 2021. On perusal of the syllabus for direct recruitment examination for the post of surveyor under Land Revenue & Settlement Department as well as the syllabus of B.E semester-3 which has been annexed as Annexure-3 & 4 respectively to the affidavit-inopposition filed by the private respondents, it appears that the B.E (Civil) syllabus demonstrably includes 1 (one) year survey course.

¶116

33) It is a well settled principle that while interpreting the provisions of a statute or rules, ordinary meaning has to be assigned to the words used therein. If there is no ambiguity in a provision contained in a statute/rule, plain meaning is to be ascribed to such a provision. In the instant case the requirement of relevant rule prescribed in eligibility criteria is “Bachelor’s degree from a recognized university who have completed at least 1 (one) year survey course from any Government recognized institution”. The plain reading of the aforesaid provision only contemplates a Bachelor’s degree and completion of 1 (one) year survey course from the Government recognized institution. On a plain reading of the aforesaid eligibility criteria, it appears that, though, for a candidate possessing a Bachelor’s degree (like Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Commerce, Bachelor of Agricultural Sciences, Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery, etc.) the syllabus of which does not include 1 (one) year survey course, the requirement of completing a separate 1 (one) year survey course would

¶117

Page No.# 22/24

¶118

be there, however, for a Bachelor’s degree like Bachelor of Engineering (Civil), where 1(one) year survey course is part of its curriculum, insisting on completion of a separate 1 (one) year survey course again by such candidate would be illogical and against the plain meaning of the eligibility criteria as prescribed therein by the Recruitment Rules, 2021.

¶119

34) In the eligibility criteria prescribed for the post of surveyor in the Recruitment Rules, 2021, no specific Bachelor’s degree has been specified unlike that of the post of surveyor-I, where the Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) as well as Bachelor of Technology (Geomatics and Geodesy) have been prescribed as alternative eligibility criteria apart from Bachelor’s degree who have completed surveying supervisor course. However, that in itself, does not mean that the candidates possessing B.E (Civil) degree are excluded from the eligibility criteria for applying to the post of surveyor, neither it would mean that the candidates possessing B.E (Civil) degree would be required to undergo a separate 1 (one) year survey course again when their B.E (Civil) curriculum included extensive course on survey for 1 (one) year. It would be an illogical requirement. The statutory provisions are to be interpreted in a way which does not lead to irrationality and insisting that a candidate possessing B.E (Civil) degree to undergo separate 1(one) year course in survey, when the curriculum of B.E (Civil) degree itself included extensive course on survey for 1 (one) year would be irrational.

¶120

35) Since Bachelor of Engineering (Civil) degree is also a Bachelor’s degree, however, its only difference with other Bachelor’s degree may be in the

¶121

Page No.# 23/24

¶122

fact that it includes 1 (one) year survey course in its curriculum itself. Hence, no separate completion of 1 (one) year survey course is required for such candidates. Under such circumstances, any candidate possessing B.E (Civil) degree, when the syllabus of such a course itself include 1 (one) year survey course, is eligible for applying to the post of surveyor. Not specifically mentioning the B.E (Civil) degree in the Recruitment Rules, 2021, does not bar a candidate possessing such qualifications from applying to the said post.

¶123

36) In view of above discussion, it appears that the clarification given by the State Government to the Mizoram Public Service Commission by its Letter dated 06.09.2024, stating therein that the qualification of B.E (Civil) as acceptable qualification for direct recruitment to the post of surveyor, provided that 1(one) year survey course is included as one of its subjects, is not contrary to the Recruitment Rules, 2021. The private respondents No. 6 to 17 were found to possess the requisite qualification i.e., a Bachelor’s degree as well as requirement of having completed 1 (one) year survey course. They are found to be qualified for appointment to the post of surveyor on the basis of a competitive recruitment examination in which the petitioners also participated. Their candidature, after having successfully coming out in the competitive recruitment examination, cannot be canceled at this stage on non-existent deemed exclusion clause in the Recruitment Rules, 2021 prescribing for the eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of surveyor.

¶124

37) The petitioners had failed to demonstrate any breach of their fundamental

¶125

Page No.# 24/24

¶126

rights by the respondents in recommending the names of private respondents for appointment to the post of surveyor by the impugned notifications.

¶127

38) In view of a discussions made and reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs of the judgments, this Court is considered opinion that this writ petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed. The stay on appointment in pursuant to the impugned notification granted earlier accordingly stands vacated.

¶128

JUDGE

¶129

Comparing Assistant

Sh. Fc. Hmingthanmawia and 19 Ors. v. The State of Mizoram r/b the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram and 18 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sh. Fc. Hmingthanmawia and 19 Ors. v. The State of Mizoram r/b the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram and 18 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Lalbiakdingi Vs The State of Mizoram R/b the Secretary to Govt. of Mizoram, Home Dept. and Anr.

Smt. Laldingpuii Vs The State of Mizoram

Sh. Zohruailiana and 73 Ors. Vs Sh. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Secretary, Ministry of Defence (Border Roads Development Board) and 5 Ors.

Sh F. Laltlankima Vs The State of Mizoram and Another

Lalnunzawma Vs The State of Mizoram and Anr.

Nirmal Dutta Vs the State of Assam and Anr.