Gauhati High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 1729/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. GOSWAMI This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by th e Mizoram Judicial Service Association, for short, ’the Association’, challengin g the order dated 19.02.2010 issued by the Registrar General of the Gauhati High Court, consequent upon recommendation made by the Gauhati High Court directing the Commissioner/ Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Law & Judicial Departm ent to take necessary steps for initial absorption of the respondent no.6, in t he Mizoram Judicial Service, for short, MJS, under Rule 6(1) of the Mizoram Judi cial Service Rules, 2006, for short, ’ MJS Rules of 2006’. 2. Affidavit-in-opposition was filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2 through the Registrar General of the Gauhati High Court, who was arrayed as respondent no.2. The respondent nos.3, 4 and 5 as well as respondent no.6 had also filed th eir respective counter affidavits. Affidavit-in-reply was filed by the writ peti tioner to the counter affidavit filed by the respondent nos.1 and 2 as well as b y the respondent no.6. The respondent no.6 had filed an additional affidavit as well as a rejoinder to the affidavit-in-reply filed by the writ petitioner on 09 .11.2010. One additional affidavit was also filed by respondent nos.3, 4 and 5. 3. The pleaded version that has emerged from the writ petition is that the writ petitioner Association comprising of judicial officers of Mizoram was estab lished in the year 1984 and it is taking up cudgels on behalf of its members fro m its very inception and is also relentlessly putting effort for separation of j udiciary from the executive in Mizoram. All the members of the Association were given the benefit of Justice Shetty Commission recommendations in the year 1998 with effect from 01.07.1996. Such benefit was not given to the respondent no.6 a s he was not a judicial officer and acknowledging that fact, he also never stake d any claim for grant of such benefit. The respondent no.6 was appointed to Grade-III of MJS as Sub-divisional 4. Magistrate in violation of Mizoram Judicial Service Rules, 1986, for short, MJS Rules of 1986 without there being any advertisement and recommendation of Depart mental Promotion Committee/Selection Committee and what is more, without their b eing any post of Sub-divisional Magistrate in Grade-III. The appointment of the respondent no.6 as Sub-divisional Magistrate on 04.07.1988 was purely an ad hoc appointment and before his service could be regularized either under the MJS Rul es of 1986 or Mizoram Judicial Service Rules, 1989, for short, MJS Rules of 1989 , he directly applied without obtaining any no objection certificate from the St ate Government for the post of Assistant Registrar, Mizoram Bench of the Gauhati High Court and was appointed as such under Gauhati High Court Services (Appoin tment, Condition of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1967, for short, ’the Rules of 1967’, by an order dated 06.09.1990. The subsequent promotions earned by the res pondent no.6 as Deputy Registrar on 14.11.1990 and as Registrar on 11.01.1999 we re also under Rules of 1967 and not under MJS Rules of 1989 and he never got app ointment or promotion to these posts as member of Judicial Service under MJS Rul es of 1989 though his name was mistakenly shown in the inter-se seniority list d ated 30.01.1990 of judicial officer of MJS. It is also stated that MJS Rules of 1986 was approved by the High Court and it came into force on and from 17.11.198 6 and that MJS Rules of 1989 were notified on 11.09.1989. 5.
Legal Reasoning
The respondent no.6 initiated a move, for the first time, on 08.03.2007, by way of submitting a representation to the Gauhati High Court making a grieva nce that he was not included in the list of members of judicial service prepared by the Law & Judicial Department, Government of Mizoram and praying for inclusi on of his name in MJS at serial number 2, taking into consideration his date of appointment as Registrar in Grade-I of MJS, with all consequential benefits. On response being sought on the said representation from the Government of Mizoram in the Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, for short, Department o f P&AR, the department, by its letter dated 02.07.2007 submitted para-wise comme nts taking the stand that the respondent no.6 was no longer a member of MJS and his service is governed by the Rules of 1967, reinforced by the fact that he w as promoted to the post of Deputy Registrar Under Rule 7(2) of the Rules of 1967 and therefore, he being outside the purview of the State Government, was rightl y not included as a member of MJS. The High Court rejected the representation in the month of October, 2007 by holding that the respondent No. 6 was not an exis ting member of MJS at the commencement of MJS Rules of 2006. The High Court had recommended 22 judicial officers for initial absorption in MJS under Rule 6(1) o f MJS Rules of 2006 by communication dated 24.05.2007 and 30.06.2007. Such recom mendations were acted upon by the Government of Mizoram by issuing notification dated 06.09.2007. By a subsequent communication dated 12.12.2007, the High Court recommended some modification in the earlier recommendations. The government re sponded by effecting the modifications recommended by letter dated 10.01.2008. H owever, it transpired that the respondent no. 6 again submitted a representation on 12.11.2007 praying for re-examination of the issue of his absorption in MJS as he was always deemed to be a member of Mizoram State Judicial Service by the Government of Mizoram. When the views of the Government of Mizoram were sought, the Government of Mizoram reiterated its stand that the respondent no.6 was not an existing member of MJS at the commencement of MJS Rules of 2006. The Associat ion also filed its objection on 11.01.2009 contesting the claim of the responden t no.6. The Committee which was constituted by the High Court to consider the re presentation dated 12.11.2007 submitted by the respondent no.6 came to a finding that the respondent no.6 continued to be a member of the MJS all along until co ming into force of MJS Rules of 2006 and as such he was eligible for initial abs orption under Rule 6(1) of the MJS Rules of 2006. The recommendation of the Comm ittee having been accepted by the Full Court, the letter dated 19.02.2010 was is sued for initial absorption of the respondent no.6 in MJS. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent nos. 1 and 2, it 6. is stated that pursuant to an advertisement dated 06.04.1990 for filling up the post of Assistant Registrar along with some other posts of Permanent Bench of th e Gauhati High Court at Aizawl, the respondent no.6 submitted his application th rough proper channel on 01.05.1990 mentioning that he was holding a post in Grad e-III in MJS. On recommendation of the Selection Committee, he was appointed in the post of Assistant Registrar by order dated 06.09.1990. On 14.11.1990, the re spondent no.6 was promoted as Deputy Registrar and subsequently to the post of R egistrar on 11.01.1999, in which post he was confirmed on 25.05.2004. The post o f Registrar, Aizawl Bench, which was created on 10.09.1998, was included as cadr e post in the MJS Rules of 1989. At the time of his appointment as Assistant Reg istrar, the respondent no. 6 was holding a post in Grade-III in MJS. Though his appointment to the post of Assistant Registrar was not by way of promotion as co ntemplated under Rule 10(1) of MJS Rules of 1989, he does not cease to be a memb er of MJS because of his direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Registrar, which was the only post of Assistant Registrar sanctioned and created by the Gov ernment of Mizoram and which was included in Grade-III of MJS Rules of 1989. It was not a fact that name of respondent no.6 was included in the inter-se seniori ty dated 30.01.1990 by mistake but the same was done in terms of the Rules. He n ever ceased to be a member of MJS and continued to be in MJS even after his conf irmation to the post of Deputy Registrar on 06.07.1993. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.6, he stated t 7. hat he was initially appointed as Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate which was i n Grade-III of MJS Rules of 1986. On 04.07.1989 the MJS Rules of 1986 was supers eded by MJS Rules of 1989. The members of State Judicial Service being eligible to apply in response to the advertisement dated 06.04.1990 for the post of Assis tant Registrar, he applied and being selected, was appointed on 06.09.1990 and b y virtue of Rule 3, Rule 4 and Rule 10 of the MJS Rules of 1989 read with Rule 7 (3) of Rules 1967, he continued to be a member of the MJS. In the inter-se senio rity list dated 21.05.1995, he was placed at Sl. No.8 after he was promoted as D eputy Registrar vide Notification dated 14.11.1990. Though he was promoted to th e post of Registrar on 11.01.1999 and subsequently confirmed in the post on 20.0 5.2004, he continued to remain in MJS. MJS Rules of 1989 came to be replaced by MJS Rules, 2006. Surprisingly, Schedule-A of MJS Rules of 2006 made under Rule 5 (2) providing for strength of service did not include the post of Registrar, Dep uty Registrar and Assistant Registrar. It is stated that the same did not alter
Decision
his status as a member of MJS in view of Rule 33 of MJS Rules of 2006 providing for saving of any appointment made etc. under MJS Rules, as the posts of Assista nt Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Registrar were posts under the MJS Rules of 1 989. 8. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents no.3,4 and 5, i t is stated that though the respondent no.6 by his letter dated 30.03.1998 drew special attention of the State Government to grant benefit to be given to the ju dicial officers with effect from 01.07.1996 in terms of the recommendation made vide resolution dated 31.01.1998 by National Judicial Pay Commission, he never c laimed for himself any benefit as he did not reckon himself as an existing memb er of MJS but considered himself to be a member of Gauhati High Court Service. S ubsequently also he never staked any claim and as such he cannot claim the benef it of judicial service after long years of silence and inaction. The respondent no.6 was not appointed as Sub-divisional Magistrate (Judicial) but as Sub-divisi onal Magistrate purely on ad hoc basis. Though no post of Sub-divisional Judicia l Magistrate had been created, the post was shown at Schedule-A of the MJS Rules of 1989 as cadre post of MJS. While supporting the stand of the writ petitioner , it is pleaded that second representation of the respondent no.6 dated 12.11.20 07 was not maintainable and should not have been entertained by the High Court. The respondent no.6, who was not a practising advocate was chosen on emergency b asis for holding the post of Sub-divisional Magistrate and posted at Aizawl thou gh no post of Sub-divisional Magistrate was created at Aizawl. The ad hoc appoin tment of respondent no.6 as Sub-divisional Magistrate was not regularized under MJS Rules of 1986, which was notified on 17.11.1986 and which was in force till 11.09.1989, the date the MJS Rules of 1989 was notified in official gazette. The posts of Assistant Registrar, Deputy Registrar were created by order dated 18.1 0.1089 without any reference as to whether they would be cadre posts of MJS and naturally these posts are meant for Gauhati High Court Service. There was no pro vision for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Registrar under the provi sion of MJS Rules of 1989 and High Court never invoked and applied the provision s of Rule 10 of MJS Rules 1989 while filling up the post of Registrar, Deputy Re gistrar and Assistant Registrar and posts were filled up by resorting to the pro vision of Rules of 1967. The respondent no.6, thus, at the commencement of MJS R ules of 1989, was neither an appointee under the MJS Rules of 1986 nor was holdi ng any post listed in Schedule-C to the MJS Rules of 1989 for the purpose of ini tial constitution of the service under Rule 13 of the MJS Rules of 1989. He coul d not have been in Grade-III of MJS as per MJS Rules of 1989 and his ad hoc appo intment as Sub-divisional Magistrate was not saved under Rule 32 of the MJS Rule s of 1989. Though the respondent no.6 was not a member of MJS in Grade-III as pe r schedule-A of MJS Rules of 1989, the respondent no.6 was appointed as Assistan t Registrar on 06.09.1990 under Rule 7 (3) of the Rules of 1967 and not Rule 10 of the MJS Rules, 1989. The respondent no.6 had submitted his application for t he post of Assistant Registrar through the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl and joine d the post without obtaining any formal release from the Government. Having n ot been regularly appointed, he had no lien to any post or service prior to 11.0 9.1990 and he had abandoned or quit the post of Sub-divisional Magistrate on his own. The appointment of respondent no.6 to the post of Deputy Registrar is also void ab initio. Because of prevailing confusion due to not having access to rel evant materials, the name of respondent no.6 was included in the list of initial appointees along with 19 judicial officers forming the initial constitution of MJS with effect from 11.09.1989 i.e. the date of notification of MJS Rules of 19 89 vide notification dated 25.08.1993. Name of respondent no.6 was put against G rade-II of the Service and there was objection from members of the Association a gainst his induction. Subsequently, his date of induction was changed to 26.11.1 990 by notification dated 02.09.1993. Belatedly, respondent no.6 filed a represe ntation against alteration of his date of induction by letter dated 28.02.1995. However, the relevant file went missing and is still untraceable. The notificati on dated 25.08.1993 was a subject matter of challenge in Civil Rule No. 3483 of 1993 which was disposed of by the Gauhati High Court with the observation that grievances expressed relating to deficiencies in the eligibility criteria should be looked into by the High Court on its administrative side at the time of conf irmation of the initial appointees in the MJS. Accordingly, by letter dated 30.5 .1995, Law & Judicial Department, sought clarification from the High Court as to whether the respondent no.6 was in the High Court service. By communication da ted 04.07.1997, matter pertaining to confirmation of 15 Mizoram Judicial Service Officers was referred to the High Court for consideration and approval. By a co mmunication dated 24.06.1998 issued by the Registry of the High Court, only the respondent no.6 was confirmed in the post of Deputy Registrar with effect from 0 6.07.1993, without considering the cases of the members of the Association. With such confirmation, he lost lien in any cadre post of MJS, if at all he had any such lien earlier. While creating the post of Registrar vide notification dated 10.09.1998, it was not provided that the same was a cadre post of MJS and only the pay scale attached to the post as per MJS Rules of 1989 was provided. The po st had to be created in view of direction given by the High Court in Civil Rule No. 43 of 1998 and immediately on creation of the post, the respondent no.6 was promoted and appointed by notification dated 11.01.1999 to the post of Registra r. The respondent no.6 was also confirmed in the post of Registrar, Aizawl Bench , with effect from 20.05.2004, by letter dated 25.5.2004, in terms of Rules of 1 967. 9. In the additional affidavit, the respondent no.6 stated that grant of be nefits under Shetty Commission under Mizoram Judicial Service Rules, 2005, for s hort, the MJS Rules of 2005, is of no effect as the High Court did not approve t he said MJS Rules of 2005. Under the MJS Rules of 1989, the Hon’ble the Chief J ustice is empowered to appoint Assistant Registrars from members of MJS read wit h Rule 7 of the Rules of 1967. The communication dated 2.7.2007 issued by the P & AR Department indicating after 18 years that the name of respondent no.6 was mistakenly included in the list of Judicial Officers w.e.f. 11.09.1989 is motiva ted and that is why his name was not included in the list which contained 22 nu mber of judicial officers. 10. In the affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit- in-opposition, it is stated that the respondent no.6 was never appointed as Judicial Officer Grade-III in th e pay scale of Rs.650/- -1200/-, but was appointed as Sub-divisional Magistrate in the scale of pay of Rs.2000/- -Rs.2500/- per month, which is not a post eith er under MJS Rules of 1986 or the MJS Rules of 1989 and further he was not enti tled to be absorbed in Judicial Service as an initial appointee as per Rule 13 r ead with Schedule-C of the MJS Rules of 1989 as he left the post of Sub-division al Magistrate on 6.9.1990. 11. In the affidavit-in-reply to the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the re spondents no.1 and 2, it is stated that there was no new ground for fresh consid eration of the representation of the respondent no.6. After the recommendation o f the High Court to absorb 21 Judicial Officers was accepted by the Governor and Notification dated 10.1.2008 was issued constituting MJS with 21 existing membe rs of the service, the process of induction and constitution of service, so far as the numbers of judicial appointees are concerned, attained its finality and t herefore, High Court could not have again re-considered the second representatio n. In the additional affidavit, respondent nos. 3, 4 and 5 have taken a similar stand with regard to the second representation of the respondent no.6 as was ta ken by the writ petitioner. Doubt is also expressed that as there was no indica tion whatsoever in the correspondences from the High Court about second represen tation of the respondent no.6 that either the representation was not in existenc e or the same was not considered by the High Court. It is further stated that re spondent no.6 was not an existing member of MJS under the MJS Rules of 1989 on t he date of commencement of MJS Rules of 2006. It has also been stated that creat ion of orders of the post of Assistant Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Registrar of Aizawl Bench did not specify or declare that these were encadred as cadre po st of MJS under MJS Rules of 1989 and only the pay-scale attached to the post of Registrar so created was specified to be the pay scale of the post of Registrar as shown in schedule to the MJS Rules of 1989. 12. Mr. P. Pathak, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that th e respondent no.6 was not a member of the MJS at any point of time. He has submi tted that the respondent no.6 did not apply through proper channel for the post of Assistant Registrar and the No Objection Certificate, issued by the Deputy Co mmissioner, cannot be treated as a valid No Objection Certificate issued by the competent authority. The appointment of the respondent no.6 on 04.07.1988 was de hors the MJS Rules of 1986, such appointment having not been preceded by way of advertisement and the DPC having not been constituted for consideration of his case for appointment. It is his categorical submission that the respondent no.6 was appointed as Assistant Registrar under the Rules of 1967 and therefore, even if it is assumed that his appointment as Sub-divisional Magistrate would qualif y him to be a member of the MJS, his lien had come to an end on his appointment as Assistant Registrar. It is also strenuously argued by Mr. Pathak that the Hig h Court having rejected the representation of the respondent no.6 by holding tha t he was not an existing member of the MJS at the time of commencement of MJS R ules of 2006, such decision, in absence of any new material, could not have been reviewed subsequently by the High Court. It is also submitted that petitioner h aving not challenged the Notification dated 06.09.2007 (Annexure C-1) where unde r 22 judicial officers were absorbed/ inducted in the MJS as re-constituted unde r the MJS Rules of 2006 excluding him, the High Court, in the administrative si de, could not have reviewed its earlier decision. He has submitted that the res pondent no.6 cannot be construed to be a judicial officer and to buttress his su bmission he places reliance in the case of Kumar Padma Prasad -vs- Union of Indi a & ors, reported in (1992) 2 SCC 428. 13. Mr. D.K.Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent no.6 submits that the respondent no.6 was appointed as Sub-divisional Magistrate in MJS Grade-III by order dated 04.07.1988 and it is inconsequential that he was ap pointed on ad hoc basis. In the provisional inter-se-seniority list of the offic ers under Law & Judicial Department dated 30.01.1990, the name of respondent no. 6 was placed at Sl.no.10. While he was holding the post of Sub-divisional Magist rate, he was appointed as Assistant Registrar, on 06.09.1990 and the post of Ass istant Registrar of High Court was a post in Grade-III of the Rules of 1989. He has also submitted that the post of Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate was also a post in Grade-III in the MJS Rules of 1989. Similarly, posts of Deputy Registr ar and Registrar of the High Court were also cadre posts under the MJS Rules of 1989. In the seniority list dated 21.05.1995, when the respondent no.6 was holdi ng the post of Deputy Registrar of Aizawl Bench, his name was placed at Sl no.8. On 11.01.1999, the respondent no.6 was promoted as Registrar, Aizawl Bench. Tho ugh the order dated 25.05.2004 indicates that officers of the Gauahti High Court , Aizawl Bench named therein including the respondent no.6 are confirmed in the posts they were holding, the order does not mean that the respondent no.6 was an employee of the High Court inasmuch as under the Rules of 1967, post of Registr ar or for that matter the posts of Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar were not posts under the Rules of 1967. There was no question of the respondent no.6 giving up lien of a judicial post under MJS as the respondent no.6 was never an employee of the Registry of the High Court. He has submitted that there was no dispute whatsoever amongst the members of the Association, at least up to 28.04. 2005, and to reinforce his argument, learned senior counsel has drawn the attent ion of the Court to Annexure-1 of the affidavit of the respondent no.6 dated 28. 04.2005 where name of the respondent no.6 also appeared as a member in a communi cation made by the MJS Association. Dwelling on Rule 10 of the MJS Rules of 1989 , the learned senior counsel submits that special power has been conferred upon the Hon’ble Chief Justice to fill certain posts and any appointment made by virt ue of exercise of such power to the post of Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Assi stant Registrar will be subject to provisions of the MJS Rules of 1989. Inviting the attention of the court to Schedule-C of the MJS Rules of 1989, the learned senior counsel submits that in view of Rule 13 (I) of the MJS Rules of 1989, res pondent no.6 having held the post of Sub-divisional Magistrate, he was a member of the service and had been appointed in the equivalent Grade and Scale as speci fied in the Schedule appended to the Rules. Schedule-A of MJS Rules of 2006 whic h provided for composition of service and duty of posts, excluded the posts of R egistrar, Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar as also the post of Legal Rem embrancer-cum- Secretary, Law & Judicial. It is submitted by him that exclusion of the said posts is not material inasmuch as saving clause as contained in Rul e 33 of MJS Rules of 2006 saves any appointment made, order issued, action take n etc. under the earlier MJS Rules. While the name of the respondent no.6 was no t included in the Notification dated 06.09.2007, the name of Secretary, Law & Ju dicial was included in Grade-I though such post was not otherwise included in Sc hedule-A of Rules of 2006. Mizoram Judicial Rules, 2005, for short MJS Rules of 2005 was not approved by the High Court as the same was in violation of draft Mi zoram Service Rules, 2002, for short, MJS Rules of 2002 which was approved by th e High Court and therefore, the Notification dated 03.04.2006 promoting members of MJS excluding the respondent no.6 to provisional draft higher pay-scale attac hed to grade of the cadre as shown against each of them w.e.f. 16.6.2005 must be held to be without any authority of law. 14. Mr. S. S. Dey, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court submits that 62 posts including one post of Assistant Registrar under the MJS Rules of 1989 was created when the Aizawl Permanent Bench of Gauhati High Court was set up. T he respondent no.6 was inducted to the post of Assistant Registrar which was a c adre post under the MJS Rules of 1989. The post of Assistant Registrar was not i ncluded in the Rules of 1967 for Aizawl Bench. The respondent no.6 had responded to the advertisement dated 06.04.1990 being a member of the State Judicial Serv ice Grade-III. Even though post was in the Aizawl Bench of the Gauhati High Cour t, the same being a cadre post in the MJS Rules of 1989, it cannot be contended that on his appointment as Assistant Registrar, the respondent no.6 became a mem ber of the High Court Service and he ceased to be member of the MJS. At no point of time, the appointment of the respondent no.6 as Assistant Registrar was chal lenged and therefore, even if there was any procedural irregularity in such appo intment, it is too late in the day to contend that his appointment as Assistant Registrar in the Aizawl Bench of the Gauhati High Court was not in accordance wi th the Rules. He has also submitted that appointing authority, both under the Ru les of 1967 and under the MJS Rules of 1989 for the post of Assistant Registrar, is the Chief Justice of the High Court and therefore, mere reference to Rule 7( 2) of the Rules of 1967 in the order of appointment as Assistant Registrar dated 14.11.1990 will not obliterate the status of the respondent no.6 as a member of the MJS. He has submitted that while rejecting first representation of the resp ondent no.6, the fact that the post of Assistant Registrar, Deputy Registrar, Re gistrar were included as cadre posts in MJS Rules of 1989 was not brought to the notice of the authorities. The same had a great relevance in deciding the quest ion as to whether the petitioner was an existing member of judicial service at t he time of commencement of MJS Rules of 2006. Considering the matter in its enti rety, the committee which was entrusted to look into the second representation o f the respondent no.6 opined that the respondent no. 6 was an existing member at the time of commencement of MJS Rules of 2006 and the resolution of the committ ee was approved by the Full Court by circulation. It is contended by him that Hi gh Court, for good and sufficient reason, can always review its decision on the administrative side and no fault can be found in subsequently holding that the r espondent no.6 was an existing member of the service at the commencement of MJS Rules of 2006 though the first representation of the respondent no.6 for inclusi on of his name in the list of judicial officers, which was excluded from the Not ification dated 6.9.2007, was rejected. 15. y adopted the submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. 16. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have given due con sideration to their submissions. We have also perused the records produced by Mr . Dey. 17. The moot question is whether the respondent no.6 was a member of the Miz oram Judicial Service or was holding any post specified /notified by the State G overnment in consultation with the High Court at the time of commencement of MJS Rules of 2006 for his initial recruitment by way of absorption in the posts me Mr. A.K. Sarma, learned Additional Advocate General, Mizoram, has broadl ntioned in Schedule ’A’. 18. Having regard to the submissions addressed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as by the learned Additional Advocate General, Mizor am that High Court could not have reviewed its earlier decision by which it was held that the respondent no.6 was not an existing member of the MJS at the time of commencement of the MJS Rules of 2006, it will be appropriate to dispose of t he said contention at the very outset. 19. It is submitted that though High Court has power of review of its decisi ons in the administrative side, in the instant case, the power of review could n ot have been exercised in absence of any new material and also in view of proces s of induction and constitution of service in terms of Rule 6 of the MJS Rules o f 2006 having attained finality with the Notification dated 06.09.2007 issued to that effect. 20. It cannot be said that High Court does not have power of review even for good and sufficient reasons. Even if no new material has come forth, power of r eview of administrative decisions is always available in order to correct an oth erwise incorrect decision so that no prejudice or injustice is caused to anyone. It was submitted that the fact that the post of Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar are posts which are included in the MJS Rules of 1989 was o verlooked at the time of consideration of the first representation of the respon dent no.6. No fetters are found in the language of Rule 6 of the MJS Rules of 20 06 that once a Notification was issued, there is no further scope for initial re cruitment by way of absorption. If the name of an existing member of MJS was ina dvertently or erroneously not included and even if a Notification was issued aft er consultation with the High Court notifying existing members of service, it wi ll be irrational and unreasonable to hold that mistake cannot be corrected and t he aggrieved person must necessarily have to be relegated to take recourse to le gal proceedings. Thus, the contentions urged with regard to reconsideration of t he case of the respondent no.6 for initial absorption fails. This court will now have to consider the correctness or otherwise of the decision taken by the High Court for initial absorption of the respondent no.6 as a member under the MJS R ules of 2006. 21. The MJS Rules of 1986 was brought into operation with effect from 17.11. 1986. Rule 3 thereof provided for constitution of the service to be known as Miz oram Judicial Service consisting of the Grade of Officers as shown in Schedule ’ A’ to the said Rules. Grade-III of the MJS Rules of 1986 consists of ’Judicial O fficer’. The order dated 04.07.1988 shows that the respondent no.6 was appointed on ad hoc basis as Sub-divisional Magistrate in the Grade-III of MJS. Though th e post of Sub-divisional Magistrate as such is not mentioned in Schedule ’A’, th e order of appointment shows that the appointment was made against the post crea ted vide order dated 16.3.1988. Thus, it has to be understood that the post of S ub-divisional Magistrate is a post in Grade-III. The essence of the order dated 04.07.1988 is that the respondent no.6 was appointed in Grade-III of MJS and des cription of the post as Sub-divisional Magistrate instead of Judicial Officer wi ll not make any difference. 22. The MJS Rules of 1989, which was notified in the Mizoram Gazette on 11.0 9.1989, was deemed to have come into force from 17.02.1986, on which date MJS Ru les of 1986 was notified in Mizoram Gazette. Rule 13 of the aforesaid MJS Rules of 1989 provides, amongst others, that persons who immediately before the commen cement of the Rules, held or have been holding any of the existing posts as spec ified in Schedule ’C’ or persons appointed to MJS after the commencement of MJS Rules of 1986 shall be the members of the MJS and deemed to be appointed in the equivalent grade and scale as specified in Schedule appended to the MJS Rules of 1989. Schedule ’C’ of the MJS Rules of 1989, which is relatable to Rule 5(2) an d Rule 13(i), at serial no. 7, reflects a post named as Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate in the Grade-III. None of the parties including State respondents hav e stated that there was an existing post of Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate a t the time of commencement of the MJS Rules of 1989. If there was no such post, there would have been no occasion to include the post of Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate as an existing post. We have to reconcile ineptness in drafting of t he Rules and this post must be taken to be the post of Sub-divisional Magistrate , in which post respondent no.6 was appointed. Even otherwise, the respondent no .6 was appointed to the MJS after the commencement of the MJS Rules of 1986 and thus, he was an initial appointee in terms of the MJS Rules of 1989. Schedule ’A ’ of the Rules of 1989 contemplates four Grades: Grade-I (Senior) and Grade-I (J unior), Grade-II, Grade-III and Grade-IV. Grade-I (Senior) comprises of the post s of Legal Remembrancer cum- Secretary, Law & Judicial, Registrar, High Court an d District & Sessions Judge. Grade-II, amongst others, includes posts of Deputy Registrar, High Court. Grade-III takes within its fold, apart from some other po sts, the post of Assistant Registrar, High Court as well as the post of Sub-divi sional Judicial Magistrate. It is clear that the post of Registrar, Deputy Regis trar and Assistant Registrar were posts under the MJS Rules of 1989 and the subm ission of Mr. Sarma with reference to the affidavit of respondents no. 3, 4 and 5 that the aforesaid posts were not posts under the MJS Rules of 1989 is without any substance. Equally unsustainable is the argument of Mr. Pathak and Mr. Sarm a that at the commencement of the MJS Rules of 1989, the respondent no.6 was nei ther an appointee under the MJS Rules of 1986 nor a person appointed to the serv ice after commencement of MJS Rules of 1986. There was no challenge to the appoi ntment of respondent no.6 as Sub-divisional Magistrate. The stale and belated pl ea that his appointment was not a valid appointment in the eye of law and de hor s the MJS Rules of 1986 cannot be allowed to be raised, that too, in a collatera l manner, at this point of time. 23. spondent no.6 was an initial appointee under the MJS Rules of 1989. 24. To understand and appreciate in the right perspective the second limb of the argument of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner and endorsed by the learned Additional Advocate General, Mizoram that even assuming that the respon dent no.6 was a member of the service under the MJS Rules of 1989, his subsequen t appointment as Assistant Registrar had detached the umbilical cord with MJS, i t will be necessary to reproduce relevant extract of Rule 10 of MJS Rules of 198 9, Rule 7 of the Rules of 1967 and Rule 6 of MJS Rules of 2006, which are as und er: (A) Rule 10 of MJS Rules of 1989:- (cid:28)10. SPECIAL POWER OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO FILL CERTAIN POSTS- (1) The Chief Justice, in exercise of his powers under Article 229(1) of the Constitution, may fill up the post of the Registrar in the Grade I by way of pr omotion from posts in Grade II, the post of the Deputy Registrar in Grade II fro m the posts in Grade III, and the post of the Assistant Registrar in the Grade I II from the posts in the Grade IV. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Sub-rule (1) of this rule and in these rules, the Chief Justice may fill up 15% of the vacancies in the posts of Assistant Registrars by promoting from amongst the ministerial staff of Law & Judicial department or at the High Court and the Subordinate Courts in Mizoram. The off-shoot of the above discussion leads us to the conclusion that re (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules the conditions of the Service of the persons appointed to the posts of Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar shall be regulated by the rules already made or to be made under Article 229(2) of the Constitution subject to the provisions of these rule s. (cid:29) (B) Rule 7 of the Rules of 1967:- (cid:28)7. Gazetted officers- (1) The Registrar as well as the Joint Registrar shall be either a member of th e State Judicial Service Grade I; or a practising Advocate of not less than ten years’ standing at the Bar; or any other person, considered suitable by the Hon’ ble Chief Justice, including those who had served in the State Judicial Service Grade I and retired. (1-A) The Joint Registrar shall be either a member of the State Judicial Service Grade I; or appointed by promotion from Grade II thereof; or practicing Advocat e of not less than ten years’ standing at the bar, or any other person, consider ed suitable by the Chief Justice. (2) The Deputy Registrar shall be appointed from among either the members of the State Judicial Grade-II or by promotion from III thereof, or practicing Advocat es of not less than seven years’ standing at the Bar, or Gazetted officers in th e High Court’s Service belonging to Class II-A having degree in law. (2-A) The Principal Private Secretary to the Chief Justice may be either a gazet ted officer in the High Court service belonging to class II-B having a degree in law or any other person, considered suitable by the Chief justice. 3) The Assistant Registrar shall be appointed from among the State Judicial Serv ice Grade-III, or by promotion from among the Gazetted officers of the High Cour t’s Service belonging to Class -II (B), Class-II(C) or Class-II(D); or from amon g Advocates of not less than five years’ continuous practice at the Bar. (cid:29) (C) Rule 6 of MJS Rules of 2006:- (cid:28)6. Initial Recruitment:- (1) The persons who at the time of commencement of these rules are the existing members of the service or are holding any post as may be specified / notified by the State Government in consultation with the High Court shall continue as such under the administrative control of the High Court. (2) The persons whose services are placed under the administrative control of th e High Court shall be considered for initial recruitment by way of absorption in the post mentioned in Schedule-A. Those who are found suitable by the High Cour t shall be appointed by the Governor as initial recruits by way of absorption. S uch persons who are not found suitable for initial recruitment/absorption will s tand reverted to the State Government. (3) The High Court may place the services of members of the service at the dispo sal of State Government on deputation, as may be requisitioned by the State Gove rnment from time to time. (4) After initial recruitment by way of absorption, vacancies in the posts menti oned in Schedule-A shall be filled up in accordance with these rules. (cid:29) 25. In the recommendation of the Committee, comprising of three Hon’ble Judg es, constituted for consideration of the second representation of the respondent no. 6, recorded that 62 posts for the High Court including one post each of Dep uty Registrar and Assistant Registrar was created by the Government of Mizoram b y an order dated 18.10.1989 after establishment of the Permanent Bench at Aizawl . It is also noted therein as follows:- (cid:28) ...........The Registrar (Judicial) in the note addressed to the Hon’ble Chief Justice (Acting) dated 14.02.1990, which is available at page 8 of Establishmen t File No. HC.V-12/90(1), suggested that as under the Gauhati High Court (High C ourt of Assam, Nagaland, Meghalaya, Manipur & Tripura) Service (Appointment, Con ditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1967, the Chief Justice is the appointing authority in respect of all posts in the High Court, the posts may be advertise d as in the cases of all other outlying benches and selection may be made by the High Court after holding the necessary test/ examination. The suggestion of the Registrar was approved by the then Hon’ble Chief Justice (Acting). Pursuant the reto all the posts including the post of Assistant Registrar was advertised on 0 6.04.1990. In so far as the post of Assistant Registrar is concerned, graduates in law with not less than 5 years continuous practice, Gazetted Officers of the High Court Service belonging to Class-II (B), (C) and (D) and members of the Sta te Judicial Service, Grade-III were eligible to apply........... (cid:29) 26. In the provisional inter-se-seniority list of officers under Law & Judic ial Department dated 30.01.1990, the name of respondent no.6 was placed at seria l no.10. While he was holding the post of Sub-divisional Magistrate, in response to the advertisement dated 06.04.1990 issued by the Gauhati High Court, he appl ied for the post Assistant Registrar. His application was found to be in order a nd accordingly, the same was processed. He was recommended by a Selection Commit tee comprising of two Hon’ble Judges of the High Court and thereafter, he was ap pointed as Assistant Registrar by an order dated 06.09.1990 issued by the Regist rar (Judicial). His appointment as Assistant Registrar was never challenged and therefore, even if there was any short coming in the application that was submit ted, the same pales into insignificance in absence of any allegation of misrepre sentation or suppression of facts. The State respondents also did not inform the High Court of any perceived irregularity in the application submitted by the re spondent no. 6 as no No Objection Certificate was issued by the Law & Judicial D epartment. Situated thus, the contention that the respondent no.6 did not apply through proper channel or that No Objection Certificate issued by the Deputy Com missioner could not have been treated to be a valid No Objection Certificate nee d not detain us any longer. 27. The order of appointment dated 06.09.1990 appointing the respondent no. 6 as Assistant Registrar in the Mizoram Bench recites that in exercise of powers conferred under Article 229 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 7(3) of the Rules of 1967, the Hon’ble Chief Justice was pleased to appoint him. Under Rule 7(3) of the Rules of 1967, the Assistant Registrar is to be appointed from among the State Judicial Service Grade - III Officers, or by promotion from amon g the Gazetted Officers of the High Court’s service belonging to Class - II(B), Class - II(C) or Class - II(D); or from among Advocates of not less than 5 years ’ continuous practice of the Bar. Under Rule 10(1) of the MJS Rules of 1989, the Hon’ble Chief Justice has special power to fill up post of Registrar by way of promotion from posts in Grade - II, the post of Deputy Registrar in Grade - II f rom the posts in Grade - III and the post of Assistant Registrar in the Grade - III from the posts in Grade - IV. The respondent no. 6 was already holding the p ost of Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate, which is a post in Grade - III, at th e commencement of the MJS Rules of 1989. The learned Senior Counsel for the peti tioner is unable to show that there was a post of Assistant Registrar for Aizawl Bench under the Rules of 1967. The post of Assistant Registrar, High Court is a post in Grade - III under the MJS Rules of 1989. Therefore, appointment of the respondent no. 6, though made under the Rules of 1967 and not under the MJS Rule s of 1989, could not have been in the High Court Service. Thus, his status as a member of the MJS does not get obliterated. He continues to be a member of MJS a nd does not cease to be a member of MJS. It is also to be noted that under the M JS Rules of 1989, both the posts of Sub-divisional Judicial Magistrate and Assis tant Registrar, High Court being in Grade - III, there could not have been any p romotion of the respondent no. 6 to the post of Assistant Registrar, High Court. There may be some irregularity in the mode of appointment of respondent no. 6 a s Assistant Registrar. However, all these years, his appointment had not been qu estioned and subsequently, he had also been promoted, first to the post of Deput y Registrar under Article 229 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 7(2) o f the Rules of 1967 and then to the post of Registrar under Article 229 of the C onstitution of India read with Rules 7(1) of the Rules of 1967. The posts of Dep uty Registrar and Registrar of Mizoram Bench are also not posts under the Rules of 1967 but are posts under the MJS Rules of 1989 and therefore, the respondent no. 6 has never been in High Court Service, his confirmation as Registrar, Aizaw l Bench vide Notification dated 25.05.2004 notwithstanding. 28. In Schedule - ’A’ of the MJS Rules of 2006, depicting composition of ser vice and duty posts, the posts of Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Assistant Regi strar are omitted from the posts falling under MJS. The post of Legal Remembranc er-cum-Secretary, Law & Judicial also does not find place in Schedule - ’A’. How ever, Savings clause in Section 33 of the MJS Rules of 2006 provides that any ap pointment made, order issued, action taken or anything whatsoever done under the earlier MJS Rules prior to coming into force of MJS Rules of 2006 shall be deem ed to have been validly made, issued, taken or done under the corresponding prov isions of the said Rules. Although appointment of the respondent no. 6 was made under Article 229 of the Constitution of India read with Rule 7(3), Rule 7(2) an d Rule 7(1) to the post of Assistant Registrar, Deputy Registrar and Registrar, respectively, foundation of such appointment was on the basis that the responden t no. 6 was a member of the MJS and any action taken based on the aforesaid prem ise will come under the purview of Rule 33 of the MJS Rules of 2006. 29. From the above discussion, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the respondent no. 6 continued to be a member of the MJS from the date of his a ppointment as Sub-divisional Magistrate on 04.07.1988 until coming into force of the MJS Rules of 2006. Thus, the respondent no. 6, having fulfilled the require ment, was entitled to be considered for initial recruitment by way of absorption in terms of Rule 6 of the MJS Rules of 2006. In that view of the matter, the re commendation made by the High Court for initial absorption of the respondent no. 6 in MJS cannot be faulted. 30. In Shri Kumar Padma Prasad (supra), the Apex Court held that the express ion (cid:28)judicial office (cid:29) under Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution has to be inte rpreted in consonance with the scheme of Chapters V and VI of Part VI of the Con stitution and accordingly, laid down that expression (cid:28)judicial office (cid:29) under Art icle 217(2)(a) of the Constitution means a (cid:28)judicial office (cid:29) which belongs to th e judicial service as defined under Article 236 (b) of the Constitution of India . We are concerned in the instant writ petition with an entirely different quest ion which is as to whether the respondent no. 6 was a member of Mizoram Judicial Service or was holding any post specified/notified by the State Government in c onsultation with the High Court at the time of commencement of the MJS Rules of 2006 for his initial requirement by way of absorption. 31. In view of our discussions above, we are of the considered opinion that there is no merit in this writ application and accordingly, the same is dismisse d. No cost.