JUDGMENT : NELSON SAILO, J. Heard Mr. A. R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Govt. Advocate for the State respondents, Mr. J. C. Lalnunsanga, learned Standing Counsel for the MPSC and Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the private respondents Nos. 4 to 17, 20, 22, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29, 31 to 44. [2.] By filing this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the final seniority list of the Junior Grade of the Mizoram Civil Service (MCS) published vide Notification dated 21.06.2018 (Annexure-39) on the ground that their seniority position has been interspaced alongwith those directly recruited in 2017 and appointed on 16.01.2017 as Junior Grade MCS in terms of the MCS (Amendment) Rules, 2012. It is the case of the petitioners that a requisition was sent for filling up of vacant post of Junior Grade of MCS in terms of the relevant provisions of the MCS (Amendment) Rules, 2002 for the vacancies pertaining to the year 2012-2013. As per the relevant provisions of the service rules, 2/3 of the vacancies are to be filled up by way of direct recruitment while the remaining 1/3 by way of induction. Despite such provision, the respondents have been filling up the post of Junior Grade of the MCS only by way of direct recruitment. Aggrieved with such action, a writ petition was filed by a prospective officer i.e. WP(C) No. 44 of 2015 seeking for a direction for initiating a process to recruit Junior Grade MCS Officers by way of induction. [3.] The writ petition was disposed of vide Judgment & Order dated 20.08.2015 by directing the respondents to adhere to the provisions of the service rules by filling up the quota meant for inductees as provided in the service rules. Out of the 9 posts which were available to be filled up by way of induction, the State respondents ultimately decided to fill up 4 (four) posts. In the ensuing selection process, the petitioners were selected and recommended to be inducted as Junior Grade MCS and they were appointed as such vide Notification dated 15.12.2016. They are now before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents for re-fixation of the seniority list dated 21.06.2018 by interspacing them alongwith those who have been recruited directly on 15.01.2014. In the ensuing selection process, the petitioners were selected and recommended to be inducted as Junior Grade MCS and they were appointed as such vide Notification dated 15.12.2016. They are now before this Court seeking a direction to the respondents for re-fixation of the seniority list dated 21.06.2018 by interspacing them alongwith those who have been recruited directly on 15.01.2014. As already mentioned, the petitioners otherwise have been interspaced with those appointed in the year 2017. [4.] It is the case of the petitioners that as per the O.M. dated 04.03.2014, more particularly at paragraph No. 5, initiation of the recruitment process against a vacancy year would be the date of sending of requisition for filling up vacancies and further, initiation of recruitment process for either of the modes whether direct or promotion would be deemed to be the initiation of recruitment process for the other mode as well. Therefore, according to the petitioners, since the recruitment for filling up of the vacancies was initiated on 05.11.2012 and requisition sent to the MPSC on 31.01.2013, they are to be interspaced with those whose recruitment was initiated by this process. [5.] At this stage, it may be stated that a similar issue has been decided by this Court in WP(C) No. 127/2019 wherein, the petitioners therein who were inducted to the Junior Grade of the MCS also amongst others challenged the impugned inter se seniority list of the Junior grade MCS issued vide Notification dated 21.06.2018 and further sought for a direction to the respondents to interspace them with the respondent Nos. 4 to 12, who were directly recruited to the Junior Grade of the MCS as the process of recruitment either by way of induction or by direct recruitment was initiated at the same time and together vide Communication dated 09.08.2020. This Court vide Judgment & Order passed today, allowed the writ petition in view of the discussions and reasoning given in the said decision and the impugned inter se seniority list challenged was set aside. [6.] The issue in the present writ petition is also found to be similar. The only difference is that in WP(C) No.127/2019, the recruitment process was initiated at an earlier point of time vide communication dated 09.08.2010 and the petitioners were inducted on 15.01.2015. [6.] The issue in the present writ petition is also found to be similar. The only difference is that in WP(C) No.127/2019, the recruitment process was initiated at an earlier point of time vide communication dated 09.08.2010 and the petitioners were inducted on 15.01.2015. Whereas, in the present case, the requisition to fill up the vacant post of Junior Grade of the MCS in terms of the provisions of the MCS (Amendment) Rules, 2002 was sent to the MPSC for the vacancies pertaining to the year 2012 – 2013 on 05.11.2012. While eligible candidates were recommended and directly recruited on 15.01.2014, the petitioners were selected and inducted in the service vide Notification dated 15.12.2016 and thereafter interspaced with those who were directly recruited on 16.01.2017 in the final inter se seniority list issued vide Notification dated 21.06.2018 (Annexure-39). It is therefore, the case of the petitioners that they should be interspaced with those directly recruited on 15.01.2014. [7.] Since the case of the instant petitioners are found to be squarely covered by the decision rendered in WP(C) No. 127/2019 and that the challenge made is to the same final inter se seniority list issued vide Notification dated 21.06.2018, annexed as Annexure-39 in the instant case, the writ petition is therefore disposed of in terms of the Judgment & Order passed in WP(C) No. 127/2019. In other words, in the inter se seniority list to be redrawn, the petitioners shall be interspaced with those directly recruited on 15.01.2014. [8.] The writ petition is thus allowed. This order should be read together with the Judgment and Order passed in WP(C) No. 127/2019. [9.] The parties shall bear their own cost.