Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed a batch of civil appeals filed by ad hoc District Judges appointed to Fast Track Courts in Andhra Pradesh, who sought seniority in the regular cadre from the date of their initial ad hoc appointment in 2003. The appellants were appointed as ad hoc District Judges under special rules that explicitly stated they had no claim against regular vacancies. Their earlier challenge to a notification for regular appointments was rejected by the High Court and confirmed by the Supreme Court in Brij Mohan Lal (2) v. Union of India (2012). In that judgment, the Court directed a process for regularisation of such ad hoc judges through a written examination and interview. Pursuant to these directions, the appellants were selected and appointed as regular District Judges via G.O.MS. No.68 dated 02.07.2013. After completing probation, they challenged paragraphs 5 and 6 of that order, which governed probation and seniority, seeking seniority from 2003. The High Court dismissed their writ petition, noting that they had accepted the appointment conditions and that the rules governing ad hoc appointments precluded such a claim. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the ad hoc appointments were not to the regular cadre and that the regularisation process constituted a fresh appointment. The Court also noted that the appellants had not impleaded other affected parties and that the issue was covered by its earlier decision in V. Venkata Prasad v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Seniority - Ad Hoc Appointment - Regularisation - Appellants were appointed as ad hoc District Judges to preside over Fast Track Courts under special rules which expressly stated they had no claim against regular vacancies - Their claim for absorption was rejected by the High Court and confirmed by the Supreme Court in Brij Mohan Lal (2) - Subsequently, they were regularised as per directions in that case, which provided for a written examination and interview - Held that seniority cannot be claimed from the date of initial ad hoc appointment as the appointments were not to the regular cadre and the regularisation process was a fresh appointment (Paras 3-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether ad hoc District Judges appointed to Fast Track Courts are entitled to seniority in the regular cadre from the date of their initial ad hoc appointment after being regularised pursuant to the directions in Brij Mohan Lal (2) v. Union of India.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed all the civil appeals, upholding the High Court's order. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Ad hoc appointment
- seniority
- regularisation
- Fast Track Courts
- absorption
- judicial service rules
Case Details
Civil Appeal No.6296 of 2019 (arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.20990 of 2017) and connected appeals
Kum. C. Yamini (appellant-in-person), Sri R. Venkataramani (senior counsel), Sri Sridhar Potaraju, Ms. Uttara Babbar
The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeals against dismissal of writ petition challenging paragraphs 5 and 6 of G.O.MS. No.68 dated 02.07.2013 regarding probation and seniority of regularised ad hoc District Judges.
Remedy Sought
Appellants sought seniority in the regular cadre of District Judges from the date of their initial ad hoc appointment in 2003.
Filing Reason
Appellants were appointed as ad hoc District Judges to Fast Track Courts in 2003, later regularised in 2013, but their seniority was fixed from the date of regular appointment, not from 2003.
Previous Decisions
High Court dismissed writ petition W.P.No.13022 of 2017 on 17.04.2017; earlier, claim for absorption was rejected by High Court in W.P.No.11273 of 2004 and confirmed by Supreme Court in Brij Mohan Lal (2).
Issues
Whether ad hoc District Judges appointed to Fast Track Courts are entitled to seniority from the date of initial ad hoc appointment after regularisation.
Whether the challenge to G.O.MS. No.68 after four years of appointment and completion of probation is maintainable.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that their initial appointment followed procedure akin to regular appointments and that seniority should be from 2003, relying on Rudra Kumar Sain and Brij Mohan Lal (1).
Respondent High Court argued that ad hoc appointments had no claim to regular vacancies, the claim for absorption was rejected, and the regularisation process was a fresh appointment; also, affected parties were not impleaded.
Ratio Decidendi
Ad hoc appointments to Fast Track Courts under special rules do not confer any right to regular cadre seniority. Regularisation pursuant to Brij Mohan Lal (2) directions constitutes a fresh appointment, and seniority is to be reckoned from the date of regular appointment, not from the initial ad hoc appointment.
Judgment Excerpts
The appellant very conveniently took up the appointment subject to conditions and after getting a declaration of successful completion of probation and after ensuring berth in the judiciary, has chosen to come up with a challenge to the very Government Order by which she was appointed.
In view of the rules which govern the appointment to the post of ad hoc District Judge, the appellant is not entitled to claim seniority from the date of initial appointment.
Procedural History
Appellant appointed as ad hoc District Judge in 2003. In 2004, High Court issued notification for regular appointments; ad hoc judges filed W.P.No.11273 of 2004 challenging it, which was dismissed. SLP filed, and Supreme Court in Brij Mohan Lal (2) (2012) rejected absorption but directed regularisation process. Pursuant to that, appellants were regularised via G.O.MS. No.68 dated 02.07.2013. After completing probation, appellant filed W.P.No.13022 of 2017 challenging paragraphs 5 and 6 of the G.O., which was dismissed by High Court on 17.04.2017. Present appeals filed against that dismissal.
Acts & Sections
- Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007: Rule 9
- Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service Special Rules for Ad Hoc Appointments, 2001: Rules 2, 6, 7
