Mandatory High Court consultation governs judicial officers' transfer to legal service; mere notice cannot validate absorption or end lien.

Consultation with the High Court is mandatory for the valid appointment, continuation, promotion, or absorption of a judicial officer in another service under the constitutional control over subordinate judiciary. Mere notice, silence, or passive acquiescence does not satisfy that requirement, and a move made without the required consultation remains invalid. Where the transfer to legal service is invalid, absorption cannot defeat the officer's status in judicial service, and the lien in judicial service is not terminated. The High Court's control also supports repatriation from executive posting when the legal-service placement lacks valid constitutional compliance.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent's appointment and later continuance in Assam Legal Service, made from judicial service without consultation with the High Court, was valid; and whether the respondent's lien in judicial service stood terminated or absorbed in the legal service so as to prevent repatriation.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent's appointment and later continuance in Assam Legal Service, made from judicial service without consultation with the High Court, was valid.

Analysis: Article 235 vests control over subordinate judiciary in the High Court, and Article 234 requires consultation with the High Court in appointments to judicial service. The relevant service rules also required consultation with the High Court where a judicial officer was selected for legal service. The initial ad hoc arrangement was made with the High Court's involvement, but the later regular appointment and promotion in Assam Legal Service were made without the constitutionally and statutorily mandated consultation. Mere notice to the High Court or its silence could not amount to consultation, and invalidity caused by breach of a mandatory constitutional requirement could not be cured by inaction or lapse of time.

Conclusion: The regular appointment and subsequent continuance in Assam Legal Service without consultation were invalid and the point was answered in favour of the Appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the respondent's lien in judicial service stood terminated or absorbed in the legal service so as to prevent repatriation.

Analysis: Since the respondent's move to legal service did not satisfy the mandatory requirement of consultation, the supposed absorption in legal service could not displace his status in judicial service. The High Court's power of control under Article 235 included the power to recall a judicial officer from executive posting, and the mere fact that the officer had been retained for some time in legal service did not create a valid lien there or terminate the lien in judicial service.

Conclusion: The plea of absorption in Assam Legal Service and extinction of lien in judicial service was rejected, in favour of the Appellant.

Final Conclusion: The legal position declared by the Division Bench was set aside, while the ultimate posting arrangement was left to be worked out in the manner directed by the Court in light of the long lapse of time and the officer's personal circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: Consultation with the High Court is mandatory for any valid appointment, continuation, promotion, or absorption of a judicial officer in another service, and mere intimation or passive acquiescence does not satisfy the constitutional requirement.

---