-Report by Eshna Ray
The Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service members have filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking appropriate writs or orders to be issued to respondent no. 1. The primary relief sought is the calling of judgments of the petitioners for elevation to the High Court as judicial officers as defined in Art. 217(2)(a) of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have also sought any other writ, direction, or order that the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
FACTS:
The petitioners, who served as District & Sessions Judge Fast Track, have filed a writ petition claiming that their service should be considered as a judicial service for the purpose of their elevation to the High Court. The Registry had prepared a list of eligible officers for elevation to the High Court, in which the names of the petitioners were not included as they did not have 10 years of regular judicial service. The petitioners claimed that their service as Fast Track Court Judges should be considered as a judicial service, but the Supreme Court, relying on its earlier judgment, held that the petitioners were not entitled to seniority from the date of their initial appointment as Fast Track Court Judges. the plea raised by the petitioners to consider their service as judicial service for the purpose of Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution is not legally sustainable.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:
According to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, the petitioners were appointed on an ad-hoc basis to preside over Fast Track Courts under the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service Special Rules for AdhocAppointments, 2001. Later, they were appointed on a regular basis in the cadre of District & Sessions Judge under the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007, after going through the selection process. The petitioners’ names appeared in the seniority list of officers working in the District & Sessions Judge cadre, which was notified by the respondents on 5th January 2022. However, despite their seniority, they were not elevated to the High Court, while officers who were junior to them in seniority were elevated. The respondents have defended their decision to overlook the petitioners’ claims for elevation to the High Court.
PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:
The primary grievance of the petitioners is that their service as a District & Sessions Judge Fast Track, which they rendered on appointment from 6th October 2003, has 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 petitioners have alleged that despite being eligible for consideration, their names were not considered by the collegium as they had not completed 10 years of regular judicial service, which is the requirement of Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution. The petitioners have also pointed out that there were nine vacancies in the High Court for elevation from judicial service and a list of 27 eligible officers was placed before the collegium, but their names were not considered. Instead, officers who had completed 10 years of judicial service were considered for elevation.
JUDGEMENT:
The present case concerns a writ petition filed by certain District & Sessions Judges who were not considered for elevation to the Bench of the High Court as defined under Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution. The petitioners contended that their service rendered as a District & Sessions Judge Fast Track should have been considered as a judicial service for the purposes of their elevation to the Bench of the High Court.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, referred to the case of Kum C. Yamini Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 6296 of 2019 decided on 14th August, 2019), where it had examined the nature of appointment of the District & Sessions Judges Fast Track and had held that the petitioners were not entitled to claim the benefit of seniority from the date of their initial appointment as District & Sessions Judge Fast Track and other consequential reliefs prayed for.
The Court held that the services rendered by the petitioners as Fast Track Court Judges have not been recognized for the purpose of seniority except for pensionary and other retirement 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.Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as without substance. Pending application(s), if any, stood disposed of.
READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3KEZXrm