Inalu Zhimomi And 4 Ors vs The State Of Nagaland And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 632 Gua

                                                                  Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010003922013




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

                                 Case No. : WP(C)/564/2013

            INALU ZHIMOMI and 4 ORS
            CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, KOHIMA, NAGALAND.



            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF NAGALAND AND ANR
            REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECY., GOVT.OF NAGALAND, CIVIL
            SECRETARIAT, KOHIMA, NAGALAND.



Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR.S BHUYAN

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.S S DEY




             Linked Case : WP(C)/1619/2013

            INALU ZHIMOMI and 4 ORS
            CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
             KOHIMA
             NAGALAND

            2: M.T. THERIAH
            CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
             DIMAPUR
             NAGALAND

             3: VICTO SEMA
                                                                                  Page No.# 2/3

            CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
            MOKOKCHUNG
            NAGALAND

            4: AJONGBA IMCHEN
            CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
            PEREN
            NAGALAND

            5: SOMET CHUMDEN CHANG
            CIVIL JDGE AND JMFC
            PHEK
            NAGALAND
            VERSUS

            THE STATE OF NAGALAND and ANR.
            REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY
            GOVT. OF NAGALAND
            CIVIL SECRETARIAT
            KOHIMA
            NAGALAND

            2:THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
            KOHIMA BENCH
             REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR
             GAUHATI HIGH COURT COMPOUND
             KOHIMA
             ------------

Advocate for : MR.S BHUYAN Advocate for : MR. U K NAIR SC G.H.C appearing for THE STATE OF NAGALAND and ANR.

BEFORE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA order 23-02 -2021

[N. Kotiswar Singh, J]

On the prayer of Mr. D. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. P.

Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners, list the matter on 04.03.2021.

Page No.# 3/3

Mr. U.K. Nair, learned Senior Standing Counsel, GHC assisted by Mr. A. Chetry, learned

counsel for the respondents, submits that the matter is no more res integra, for which

learned Senior Counsel has relied upon para-19 of the judgment & order passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dheeraj Mor vs. High Court Delhi reported in (2020) 7

SCC 401. Para-19 of Dheeraj Mor (Supra) is quoted herein below:

"19. It is apparent from the decision in Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P. [Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P., (1967) 1 SCR 77 : AIR 1966 SC 1987] that this Court has laid down that concerning District Judges recruited directly from the Bar, the Governor can appoint only advocates recommended by the High Court and Rule 14 which provided for judicial officers to be appointed as direct recruits was struck down by this Court to be ultra vires. Thus, the decision is squarely against the submission espoused on behalf of in-service candidates. In the abovementioned para 11 of Chandra Mohan [Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P., (1967) 1 SCR 77 : AIR 1966 SC 1987] , the position is made clear. In Chandra Mohan [Chandra Mohan v. State of U.P., (1967) 1 SCR 77 : AIR 1966 SC 1987] the Court held that only advocates can be appointed as direct recruits, and inter alia Rule 14 providing for executive officers' recruitment was struck down. This Court has held that the expression "service of State or Union" means judicial service, it only refers to the source of recruitment. Dichotomy of two sources of recruitment/appointment has been culled out in the decision."

We will examine the issue on the next date.

List again on 04.03.2021.

                                      JUDGE                                         JUDGE


Comparing Assistant