Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

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

Similar News