Fast Track Court service not recognized for seniority, except for pensionary benefits -SC.
The Supreme Court has dismissed a writ petition (C. YAMINI & OTHERS Vs. THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 23 Feb2023) filed by members of the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service, seeking recognition of their Fast Track Court service for elevation to the High Court bench.
The petitioners had approached the court under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking an appropriate writ or order directing the respondent to consider their service rendered as Fast Track Court Judges as judicial service for the purpose of elevation to the High Court bench. They had also sought any other writ, direction, or order deemed fit and proper by the Court.
The counter-affidavit filed by the respondents revealed that the petitioners were appointed in the cadre of District & Sessions Judge on an Ad-hoc basis to preside over the Fast Track Courts under the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service Special Rules for Adhoc Appointments, 2001. They were subsequently appointed on a regular basis in the same cadre under the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007, after going through the process of selection. There was no break in service of either of the petitioners in the judicial service rendered by them in the cadre of District & Sessions Judge.
The seniority list of officers working in respect of the District & Sessions Judge cadre was notified by the respondents on 5th January 2022, and the names of the present petitioners were placed at serial numbers 20, 21, 22, and 23, respectively. However, those officers who were junior to them in seniority were elevated to the bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The petitioners’ grievance was that their service rendered as Fast Track Court Judges had not been considered as judicial service for the purposes of their elevation to the High Court bench, as defined under Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution.
The Registry had put forth a list of 27 eligible officers falling in the zone of consideration for the High Court vacancies, in order of seniority, who had regular judicial service of a minimum of 10 years as a judge, which is the requirement of Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution. However, the names of officers at serial numbers 20 to 23, 25, and 26 of the seniority list dated 5th January 2022 were not considered, as they had not completed 10 years of regular judicial service, while the names of District & Sessions Judges at serial numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, 24, and 27 to 48 were considered for elevation as each of them had completed 10 years of judicial service at the relevant point of time.
The Court observed that the services rendered by the petitioners as Fast Track Court Judges had not been recognized for the purpose of seniority, except for pensionary and other retiral benefits. Therefore, the plea raised by the petitioners to consider their service rendered as Fast Track Court Judges as a judicial service for the purpose of Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution was not legally sustainable.
Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as being without substance.
C. YAMINI & OTHERS Vs. THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
