Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/2271/2025 on 14 October, 2025
Page No.# 1/6
GAHC010088402025
2025:GAU-AS:13742-DB
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/2271/2025
MS ABIGAIL HMINGTHANPARI,
D/O LT V L TINBIAKA, RESIDENT OF A3 52, MISSION VENGTHLANG,
AIZWAL, PO KULIKAWN, PS KULIKAWN, MIZORAM, PIN 796005.
........Petitioner
-VERSUS-
1.THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT,
REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, GAUHATI HIGH COURT,
GUWAHATI, KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM, 781001.
2:THE REGISTRAR, GAUHATI HIGH COURT,
AIZWAL BENCH, AIZWAL, MIZORAM 796001.
3:THE REGISTRAR VIGILANCE CUM IN CHARGE RECRUITMENTR CELL
GAUHATI HIGH COURT, GUWAHATI, KAMRUP (METRO), ASSAM 781001.
4:THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT OF MIZORAM,
LAW AND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT, AIZAWL, MIZORAM 796006.
........Respondents
-B E F O R E -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.N. Choudhury, Senior Advocate assisted
by Mr. R.M. Deka, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. T.J. Mahanta, Senior Advocate/Standing
Counsel, Gauhati High Court assisted by Mr. P.P. Dutta,
Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2 & 3.
Page No.# 2/6
: Ms. P. Bhattacharya, Additional Advocate
General, Mizoram for respondent No.4.
Date of Hearing : 14.10.2025.
Date of Judgment : 14.10.2025.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
(Ashutosh Kumar, CJ)
We have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Mr. R.M. Deka, learned Advocate for the petitioner; Mr. T.J. Mahanta,
learned Senior Advocate/Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court assisted by Mr.
P.P. Dutta, learned Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and Ms. P.
Bhattacharya, learned Additional Advocate General, Mizoram for respondent
No.4.
2. The writ petitioner has challenged the notification dated 09.04.2025
issued by the Secretary to Government of Mizoram, cancelling her appointment
to the post of Grade-I Judicial Officer of Mizoram Judicial Service on the ground
that before her appointment in Grade I, she had cleared the examination and
had been appointed as a Grade-III Judicial Officer, which prevented her from
being considered for the post of Grade-I Judicial Officer.
3. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in Rejanish K. V. -Vs- K. Deepa & Ors. :: 2025 SCC onLine SC 2196 held as
follows:
"171. In view of the answer which we propose to give for Question
No.4, it may not be necessary to deal with the other questions,
however, since the questions are framed by this Court, we propose to
answer all the questions.
172. In the result, we answer the questions as under:
Page No.# 3/6
(i) Judicial Officers who have already completed seven years in a
Bar before they were recruited in the subordinate judicial service
would be entitled for being appointed as a District
Judge/Additional District Judge in the selection process for the
post of District Judges in the direct recruitment process;
(ii) The eligibility for appointment as a District Judge/Additional
District Judge is to be seen at the time of application;
(iii) Though there is no eligibility prescribed under Article 233(2) for a
pension already in judicial service of the Union or of the State for
being appointed as District Judge, in order to provide a level
playing field, we direct that a candidate applying as an in-service
candidate should have seven years' combined experience as a
Judicial Officer and an advocate;
(iv) A person who has been or who is in judicial service and has a
combined experience of seven years or more as an advocate or a
Judicial Officer would be eligible for being considered and
appointed as a District Judge/Additional District Judge under
Article 233 of the Constitution;
(v) In order to ensure level playing field, we further direct that the
minimum age for being considered and appointed as a District
Judge/Additional District Judge for both advocates and Judicial
Officers would be 35 years of age as on the date of application;
(vi) It is held that the view taken in the judgments of this Court right
from Satya Narain Singh (supra) till Dheeraj Mor (supra), which
take a view contrary to what has been held hereinabove do not
lay down the correct proposition of law."
4. However, we would also like to extract paragraph No.170 of the
judgment, referred to above, which, in fact, clarifies that the judgment shall be
applicable only from the date when it is pronounced and that in no case, any
selection process completed or any appointment made prior to the judgment
would be affected, except in cases wherein any interim orders were passed by
the High Courts or the Supreme Court. In such cases, the issue would now be
governed by the orders to be passed by the Benches hearing the matters.
Page No.# 4/6
5. Para 170 of the above referred judgment reads as under:
"170. In any case, we clarify that what we have held in this judgment will
be applicable only from the date of this judgment and in no case, any
selection process completed, or any appointment made prior to this judgment
would be affected, except in cases wherein any interim order(s) were passed
by the High Courts or this Court. In such cases, the issue would now be
governed by the orders to be passed by the Bench hearing the matters."
6. The petitioner had been a practising Advocate in Mizoram, who had
applied for Grade-III post of Mizoram Judicial Service against an advertisement
issued on 01.02.2024.
While the process of selection was still going on, the Gauhati High
Court issued an advertisement for filling up the posts of Grade-I Judicial Officer
on 31.05.2024 and the last date for filling up the forms was fixed on
24.06.2024.
7. The petitioner had applied there also.
8. When she had applied for Grade-I post of Mizoram Judicial Service in
June, 2024, she had been a practising Advocate and was not in any Government
service.
In the meantime, since she was successful in Grade-III examination,
she was appointed to the said post vide Notification on 17.10.2024 but she
joined on that post only on 25.10.2024.
9. We have mentioned this date of joining for the reason that when the
petitioner had applied for Grade-I Mizoram Judicial Service, she was still an
Advocate and had not joined in service.
As good luck would have it, she cleared her Grade-I examination
Page No.# 5/6
also and was appointed on that post vide Notification dated 19.03.2025 and was
made to join the service on 20.03.2025.
Later, because of the proscription of a serving Judicial Officer in
Grade-III being appointed as a District Judge (Grade-I), her appointment was
cancelled on 09.04.2025.
10. This was challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
11. However, as noted above, during the pendency of this writ petition,
the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rejanish K.V. (supra) was delivered
from where the concluding paragraphs have been extracted hereinabove.
12. Even before the decision of the Supreme Court, the petitioner was
entitled to have been appointed as a District Judge (Grade-I) for the reason that
at the time when she had applied for the post, she had not been selected as
Grade-III Judicial Officer. However, after the decision of the Supreme Court in
Rejanish K.V. (supra), there remains no doubt that the petitioner is entitled to
be retained in the Service of Grade-I Judicial Officer in the State of Mizoram.
As such, we set aside the order cancelling her appointment and
direct that she be put in service of Grade-I Judicial Officer with her seniority in
the service restored.
13. Since another appointment process was initiated during the
pendency of the litigation, the Gauhati High Court would be required to amend
the vacancy position for the ensuing examination, which has been necessitated
for the reason of retention of the service of the petitioner in Grade-I Judicial
Officer.
Page No.# 6/6
14. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
