A recruitment process initiated for specific vacancies cannot be expanded to include newly created posts post-facto. Such integration is impermissible as it distorts established reservation quotas and violates the principle that recruitment should only be directed at defined existing or anticipated vacancies.

Judgment :

Ashutosh Kumar, CJ.

The challenge in this writ petition by 4(four) serving Judicial Officers of Mizoram Judicial Service is to the issuance of a Notification dated 17.11.2025 by the Registrar (Vigilance)-cum-In-charge, Recruitment Cell, Gauhati High Court, clubbing 1(one) vacancy/ post arising out of the 2(two) newly created posts of Grade-I Mizoram Judicial Service through the process of direct recruitment, which had already been initiated vide advertisement dated 21.05.2025, keeping all other terms and conditions of the advertisement dated 21.05.2025 as well as the number of vacancy positions to be the same.

2. We have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. R.M. Deka, learned Advocate for the petitioners; Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Advocate/Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court, assisted by Mr. P.P. Dutta and Ms. P. Sarma, Advocates for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Ms. P. Bhattacharya, learned Additional Advocate General, Mizoram for respondent No.4.

3. To state the background facts, an advertisement was issued earlier by the Gauhati High Court on 31.05.2024 for filling up of 1(one) vacant post of Grade-I in Mizoram Judicial Service. One of the eligibility criteria, amongst others, for the said post was that the candidate must be practicing as an Advocate in Courts of Civil and Criminal jurisdiction on the last date fixed for receipt of applications and must have practiced for a period not less than 7(seven) years as on the last date.

It would be relevant to state here that at the time of issuance of the afore-noted advertisement, the total sanctioned posts in the cadre of District Judge of Mizoram Judicial Service were 16(sixteen) and out of the said number of posts, 2(two) posts were earmarked to be filled up through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (hereinafter to be referred as “LDCE”) and against which quota, 2(two) of the District Judges had already been serving. Against the posts earmarked for direct recruits, which was calculated at 4(four) in number, 4(four) District Judges had already been serving. However, the advertisement was issued because of the anticipated vacancy of 1(one) Shri Joel Joseph Denga, a direct recruit who was to retire on 30.06.2024.

4. As against the said advertisement dated 31.05.2024, referred to above, 1(one) Ms. Abigail Hmingthanpari was selected and appointed vide order dated 19.03.2025. However, later, the said appointment was cancelled vide order dated 09.04.2025.

5. Being aggrieved by such cancellation, afore-noted Ms. Abigail Hmingthanpari filed WP(C) No.2271/2025 before this Court challenging the cancellation of her appointment.

6. In the meantime, the Supreme Court rendered its judgment in All India Judges Association & Ors. -Vs- Union of India & Ors. :: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1184 and directed as follows:-

“89. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we issue the following directions:

(i) All the High Courts and the State Governments in the country shall amend the relevant service Rules to the effect that the quota of reservation for LDCE for promotion from the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) to the Higher Judicial Service is increased to 25%;

(ii) All the High Courts and the State Governments in the country shall amend the relevant service rules