Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/4 vs The State Of Nagaland And Anr on 4 March, 2021
Bench: N. Kotiswar Singh, Soumitra Saikia
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010003922013
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : 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
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
Page No.# 2/4
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
04.03.2021 [N. Kotiswar Singh, J.] Heard Mr. P. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. H.K. Das, learned standing counsel, Gauhati High Court and Ms. M. Kechii, learned Government Advocate, Nagaland, appearing for the respondents.
2. The reliefs claimed in this petition are as follows:-
"a) Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writs, orders, directions of like nature should not be issued quashing the impugned advertisement dated 07/11/2012 issued by Respondent No.2 as void-ab-initio and being violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and Rules, 2006;
AND
b) Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writs, orders, directions of like nature should not be issued quashing the impugned advertisement dated 16/03/2013 issued by Respondent No.2 as void-ab-initio and being violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India and Rules, 2006;
AND Page No.# 3/4
c) Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writs, orders, directions of like nature should not be issued quashing the impugned Rule 7(1) of the Rules, 2006 as void-ab-initio being violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300A of the Constitution of India;
AND
d) Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writs, orders, directions of like nature should not be issued restraining the Respondent No.2 to conduct the selection of the three (3) Grade-I posts and two (2) Grade-I posts in Respondent No.1 State pursuant to the impugned advertisements dated 07/11/2012 and 16/03/2013 issued by Respondent No.2 without complying Rule 4 and other provisions of the Rules, 2006 thereby giving opportunity to the Judicial Officers to appear in the direct recruitments of Grade-I posts in the Nagaland Judicial Service;
AND
e) Writ of Declaration or any other appropriate writs, orders, directions of like nature should not be issued declaring that the Respondent No.2 is not competent to issue the impugned Advertisements dated 07/11/2012 and 16/03/2013 and make selection of Grade-I posts in the Respondent No.1 State in view of Rules 5 and 6 of the Rules 2006;"
3. The challenge to the advertisements is mainly on the ground that Judicial Officers, who are already serving, have been debarred from taking part in the recruitment for Grade-I posts under direct recruitment quota.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, preventing serving Judicial Officers to take part in the recruitment process for Grade-I posts under direct recruitment quota is violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 300A of the Constitution. The other relief claimed is that the High Court cannot be the recruiting authority in respect of the Judicial Officers for filling up of posts under direct recruitment.
5. As regards the first issue is concerned, the matter has been already settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dheeraj Mor Vs. High Court of Delhi 1, whereby it has been held as under:-
1 (2020) 7 SCC 401 Page No.# 4/4 "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."
6. As far as the other issue that the High Court cannot be the recruiting authority for appointment of Judicial Officers Grade-I is concerned, since we have declined to interfere with the advertisements, the matter is left open to be considered in appropriate case.
7. With the above observation, the present petition is closed.
Sd/- Soumitra Saikia Sd/- N. Kotiswar Singh
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant