Judiciary: Fast Track Court – Ad hoc District Judges – Selection to the post of District Judges in regular cadre from adhoc Fast Track Court District Judges – Claim for seniority based on adhoc appointment – Appellant was appointed to a Fast Track Court (FTC) as an ad hoc District Judge in 2003 – On 28.5.2004, the second respondent-High Court issued notification inviting applications for regular appointments to the posts of District Judge in the Higher Judicial Service – A set of ad hoc District Judges appointed to the FTCs filed writ petition questioning the notification and praying for absorption against regular vacancies – High Court dismissed the writ petition – On appeal, the Supreme Court while declining to grant relief of absorption directed that the direct recruits to FTCs who opted for regularization shall be subjected to written examination and interview for being entitled to be appointed to the regular cadre of the Higher Judicial Services of the respective States – In compliance of these directions, the second respondent-High Court issued notification inviting applications, to fill up the posts of District Judges in regular cadre from the working/former ad hoc FTC District Judges – Appellants responded to the said notification and was selected and appointed by G.O. MS No. 68 dated 2.7.2013 – Appellant availed the benefit of such appointment and completed probation of two years – Nearby four years of her appointment, she filed writ petition questioning G.O. MS No. 68 dated 2.7.2013 and claiming seniority from date of her initial appointment as adhoc District Judge – High Court rejected her claim – Hence instant appeal – Held: The appointments which came to be made for selecting District Judges for FTCs sanctioned under the 11th Finance Scheme are totally different and distinct, compared to appointments which are to be made for regular vacant posts of District Judges – Merely on the ground that they were selected by following the same procedure akin to that of regular selections, is no ground to consider their claim for grant of seniority from the date of initial appointment – When their claim for regularisation/absorption and challenge to notification issued in the year 2004 for making selections to the vacant regular posts of District Judges was rejected, the appellants have no basis to claim seniority from the date of initial appointment – In any event, having applied in response to the notification issued by the High Court in 2013 after availing the benefit of appointment, it is not open to the appellants to question the conditions imposed in the order which is in conformity with rules – Undisputedly, appellant was appointed as ad hoc District Judges to preside over the FTCs only – Initially when she was not appointed to a post or category of posts, forming part of cadre strength in such category, appellant cannot claim any seniority over the persons regularly appointed in the category of posts forming part of cadre strength – Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service Special Rules for Ad Hoc Appointments, 2001 – rr.1, 2, 7 – Estoppel. Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. When the Fast Track Courts were established in the State of Andhra Pradesh out of the grants made available by the 11th Finance Commission, for making appointments to preside over such courts, a separate set of rules, namely, Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service Special Rules for Ad Hoc Appointments, 2001 were issued. The appellant was initially appointed as per the said Rules. Rule 1 of the said Rules dealt with the constitution of service and Rule 7 laid down the terms and conditions of the appointment. Rule 7(1)(B) states that a person appointed under Rule 2(i) shall not be regarded as a member of permanent cadre covered under Rule 2 of Special Rules and is not entitled to any preferential right to any other appointment. The said Rules are framed only for the purpose of selecting District Judges on ad hoc posts for presiding over Fast Track Courts. The Fast Track Courts were established initially for a limited period of five years. All these selections which were made on ad hoc basis, are not for any posts in the regular cadre of A.P. Higher Judicial Service. [Para 11] [604-B-E]
2. The claim of the appellants that they were appointed as ad hoc District Judges by following the procedure which is similar to the procedure for appointments to the sanctioned posts in the regular cadre, is no ground to accede to their request to reckon their seniority in the permanent cadre of District Judges, from their initial appointment as the District Judges for the Fast Track Courts. The appointments which came to be made for selecting District Judges for Fast Track Courts sanctioned under the 11th Finance Scheme are totally different and distinct, compared to appointments which are to be made for regular vacant posts of District Judges covered under A.P. Higher Judicial Service. If a person is not appointed to any post in the cadre, such person cannot claim any seniority over the persons who are appointed in vacant posts in the cadre. The Fast Track Courts which were sanctioned initially for five years from the grants of 11th Finance Commission, were continued in some States beyond such period with the assistance, from States and such Fast Track Courts were discontinued in some other States. Merely on the ground that they were selected by following the same procedure akin to that of regular selections, is no ground to consider their claim for grant of seniority from the date of initial appointment. Undisputedly, appellant was appointed as ad hoc District Judges to preside over the Fast Track Courts only. Initially when she was not appointed to a post or category of posts, forming part of cadre strength in such category, appellant cannot claim any seniority over the persons regularly appointed in the category of posts forming part of cadre strength. There is yet another ground to reject the claim of the appellant. Though the appellant claims seniority over the persons who are appointed in regular vacant posts forming part of cadre strength but they are not even made parties. On this ground also, the claim of the appellants deserves rejection. [Para 13] [605-C-F; H; 606-A-B]
3. The claim of seniority will depend upon several factors, nature of appointment, rules as per which the appointments are made and when appointments are made, were such appointments to the cadre posts or not etc. When the appellants were not appointed to any regular posts in the A.P. Judicial Service, appellants cannot claim seniority based on their ad hoc appointments to preside over Fast Track Courts. [Para 14] [606-E-F]
V. Venkata Prasad & Ors. v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (2016) 11 SCC 656 : [2016] 3 SCR
834 ; Mahesh Chandra Verma v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. (2018) 7 SCC 270 : [2018] 5 SCR 719 – relied on.
Brij Mohan Lal (2) v. Union of India & Ors. (2012) 6 SCC 502 : [2012] 5 SCR 305 ; Rudra Kumar Sain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2000) 8 SCC 25 : [2000]
2 Suppl. SCR 573 ; Brij Mohan Lal (1) v. Union of India & Ors. (2002) 5 SCC 1 : [2002] 3 SCR 810 ; Debabrata Dash & Anr. v. Jatindra Prasad Das & Ors. (2013) 3 SCC 658 : [2013] 2 SCR 331 – held
inapplicable.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.