Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Equal Treatment Mandated: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orders Regularization of Special Magistrate Court Staff

11 October 2024 4:40 PM

By: sayum


In a landmark judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court ordered the regularization of contract employees working in Special Magistrate Courts. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices R. Raghunandan Rao and Harinath N., mandates the absorption of these employees into regular judicial services, aligning them with previously regularized Fast Track Court staff. This decision addresses long-standing grievances regarding employment regularization in the state’s judicial system.

The case arose from the discontinuation of funding for Fast Track Courts by the Central Government, which led to a Supreme Court judgment in 2012 permitting the absorption of Fast Track Court staff into regular district services. Despite this, contract employees in Special Magistrate Courts, established under similar conditions, were denied regularization. Petitions were filed challenging this disparity, arguing that both sets of employees were similarly situated and had undergone a transparent selection process.

The court emphasized the need for equitable treatment of contract employees in both Fast Track and Special Magistrate Courts. “Both sets of employees were appointed under similar schemes and through a transparent selection process. There is no justifiable reason to treat them differently,” the bench observed.

Justice Raghunandan Rao highlighted the importance of adhering to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which mandate equality before the law and equal opportunity in public employment. The court noted, “Appointments made through a transparent selection process that meets constitutional criteria should not be denied regularization.”

The court’s reasoning was rooted in the distinction between irregular and illegal appointments. Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Umadevi, the bench stated, “Irregular appointments made through a transparent process are distinct from illegal backdoor appointments. The former can be regularized, especially when employees have served for long periods.”

Justice Harinath N. remarked, “It would be in public interest to regularize employees who have acquired in-depth knowledge and experience in the judicial system. Denying them regularization solely based on the absence of an enabling government order is unjust.”

The High Court’s judgment marks a significant step towards ensuring fairness and equality in the regularization of judicial staff. By directing the regularization of Special Magistrate Court contract employees, the court has set a precedent for addressing similar employment grievances. The ruling reinforces the principle that transparent and merit-based appointments, irrespective of the nature of the initial contract, warrant equal treatment under the law.

Date of Decision: July 31, 2024

Dornadula Sai Kumar & Others vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Others

Latest Legal News