Mizoram Judicial Service | Gauhati High Court Quashes Notification Clubbing Newly Created Post With Ongoing Recruitment, Directs Fresh Exam

The Gauhati High Court has quashed a notification which clubbed a newly created post in Grade-I of the Mizoram Judicial Service with the ongoing recruitment process initiated earlier, noting that the newly created post would fall within category of a “future” vacancy and not an “existing” or “anticipated” vacancy.

The court referred to Supreme Court's decision in All India Judges Association & Ors. -Vs- Union of India (2025) wherein quota for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion as District Judges from the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) was directed to be increased from 10% to 25%.

Pursuant to this the Mizoram Judicial Service (Seventh Amendment) Rules came to be notified on 24.02.2026, amending Rule 9 thereof and increasing the LDCE quota from 10% to 25%. Thereafter, on 20.08.2025, the Mizoram Government created 2(two) new posts of Grade-I of Mizoram Judicial Service (District Judge cadre).

By this time, pursuant to the judgment of the High Court in WP(C) No.2271/2025 passed on 14.10.2025, the cancellation of appointment of one candidate was set aside in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Rejanish K.V. -Vs- K. Deepa & Ors. (2025). Consequent upon such judgment, the candidate was reinstated to Grade-I of Mizoram Judicial Service, making the existing vacancy, which was advertised on 21.05.2025 limited and reduced to 1(one).

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Arun Dev Choudhury, observed that due to the creation of the two new posts in Grade-I, the sanctioned strength of Grade-I posts in Mizoram got increased to 18 from 16, out of which under 25% quota 4.5 posts fell under direct recruitment quota; 9 posts under the regular promotion, and 4.5 posts under the LDCE quota in terms of percentage of quota as prescribed by the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association .

"The Gauhati High Court, considering all aspects of the matter, decided to round off the number 4.5 under direct recruitment quota in Grade-I of Mizoram Judicial Service to 5. Thus, 1 post out of the 2 newly created posts was clubbed with the 1 remaining vacant post for anticipated vacancy against the advertisement dated 21.05.2025 by a Notification dated 17.11.2025 issued under the signature of the respondent No.3. Thus, against the original advertisement dated 21.05.2025, now 2(two) posts were to be filled up...While issuing directions in All India Judges Association (supra), the Supreme Court though had clarified that all such recruitment processes which were kept in abeyance in view of the pendency of the proceedings before the it, the State in such circumstances shall proceed in accordance with the Rules which were applicable on the date of the advertisement/Notification. The contention of the petitioners appears to be correct that this savings would not apply to newly created posts increasing the total cadre strength of Grade-I Judicial Officers in the State of Mizoram".

The Bench further held:

“The 25% quota for LDCE had to be calibrated afresh in accordance with the judgment and the amended Rules and 1(one) out of the 2(two) newly created post could not have been clubbed with the recruitment process which was kick-started with the advertisement dated 21.05.2024. 1(one) out of the 2(two) newly created post would not fall in the category of either 'existing' or the 'anticipated' vacancy but has to be treated as 'future' vacancy, which cannot be clubbed with the earlier recruitment exercise.”

Background

The ruling was rendered in a civil writ petition filed by four serving Judicial Officers of the Mizoram Judicial Service challenging a Notification by which one newly created post was clubbed with an ongoing recruitment process.

An advertisement was issued for filling up Grade-I posts in the Mizoram Judicial Service. Subsequently, two new posts were created and the recruitment process already initiated was modified by clubbing one of those newly created posts with the earlier advertised vacancy. Meanwhile, due to reinstatement of a previously selected candidate, the vacancy position stood reduced to one anticipated vacancy.

The petitioners contended that the newly created posts came into existence after the relevant amendment of rules following the Supreme Court judgment and therefore could not have been filled through the earlier recruitment process. They argued that such posts could not be treated as anticipated vacancies and that doing so disturbed the quota and denied them an opportunity under the LDCE quota.

Alternatively, the respondents defended the clubbing by stating that the number of vacancies in the advertisement was indicative and could vary, and that filling the posts through the same process avoided administrative burden.

"The further contention on behalf of the petitioners is that both the 2(two) newly created posts are required to be filled up against the LDCE quota.We make it clear that we have only recorded the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners on this aspect of the matter without giving our opinion. The only way to rectify the process now is to limit the number of vacancies to be filled against the advertisement of 21.05.2025 to 1(one) post, which is for the anticipated vacancy of Shri Vanlalenmawia.”

The Court accordingly quashed the impugned Notification clubbing 1(one) more newly created post under Grade-I of Mizoram Judicial Service with the recruitment exercise initiated, and directed that the written examination be conducted for only one post arising out of the anticipated vacancy.

"The written examination, thus, shall be concluded, though with larger number of candidates, who have been successful in the Preliminary Examination, for only 1(one) post under Grade-I of Mizoram Judicial Service, which arises out of an anticipated vacancy. Necessary notification in this regard need be issued by the respondent No.3 at the earliest," it said.

Case Title: Ms. Lalhriatpuii & Ors. v. The Gauhati High Court & Ors.

Case Number: WP(C) No. 1834 of 2026

Click here to read the judgment