Tag: #judicialservice

-Report by Sakshi Tanwar

The question in the present writ petition is whether the past service rendered by the petitioner as a Civil Judge can be counted for the purpose of calculating the qualifying service viz. ten years as Civil Judge, for appointment to the Delhi Higher Judicial Serviceby promotion on the basis of merit through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (‘LDCE’).

FACTS:

The petitioner joined the HCS as a Civil Judge on June 27, 2012. Following that, the petitioner successfully completed the Delhi Judicial Service. Examination, 2015, and joined the Delhi Judicial Service (‘DJS’) through the proper process, i.e., after being discharged from the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate. Upon her request, the petitioner was exempted from mandatory induction training and was given the benefit of her HCS service for the limited purpose of being exempted from training in the DJS, carry forward of leave, Leave Travel Concession and pay protection. In a letter, the petitioner sought that the Court enable her to appear for the LDCE 2022 for promotion to the DHJS by including her previous service with the HCS towards the required service of ten years as a Civil Judge. The petitioner’s request was heard by the Court’s Examination Committee and later rejected.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTION:

According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was initially appointed in the HCS on June 6, 2012. He stressed that the petitioner’s remuneration in both HCS and DJS was the same. As a result, he claims, the petitioner made a lateral entry into DJS. He stated that the provision making Civil Judges with ten years of qualifying service eligible for promotion in the 10% LDCE quota for DHJS came into effect only on April 19, 2022, as a result of a Supreme Court of India judicial order in All India Judges Association Vs. UOI & Ors. He contended that the competent authority had not considered the above judgment of the Supreme Court. He stressed that the Government of India had issued an O.M. dated September 1, 1998, for all its workers to count past service for the fulfilment of qualifying service for promotion in the new department.  He contended that the interpretation of O.M. is no longer res integra because it has been interpreted by the Supreme Court in accordance with the petitioner’s claim in Renu Mullick vs. Union of India, (1994) 1 SCC 373.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION:

The learned counsel submitted that the judicial officers nominated to HCS and DJS are subject to distinct service rules and are overseen by different High Courts, and so the terms of service of people subject to various rules cannot be equated as a matter of right.He submitted that Rule 2(e) of the DJS Rules categorically defines the word ‘service’ as the ‘Delhi Judicial Service’ and there is nothing in the DJS Rules which states that the service rendered as a judicial officer in another State is to be counted for calculating the qualifying service. He contended that the benefits of carry forward of leave, LTC, and pay protection, all of which fall within the monetary genre, were granted to the petitioner in accordance with the guidelines provided in O.M. dated 17th August 2016 of the Government of India. He also contended that the petitioner’s entire case violates the well-established legal concept that the fundamental qualification for a position is completely determined by the employer.

JUDGEMENT:

The High Court stated that there is no merit in the present writ petition. Accordingly, the present writ petition along with applications stands dismissed but with no order as to cost.

READ FULL JUDGMENT: https://bit.ly/3V4sObO

-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