Fast track Court Judges appointed on Ad hoc basis have no right for regular promotion: SC [Read Judgment]

Fast track Court Judges appointed on Ad hoc basis  have no right for regular promotion: SC [Read Judgment]

The Supreme Court of India in V. Venkata Prasad & Ors. Vs. High Court of A.P. has held that that the appointments in respect of Fast Track Courts are ad hoc in nature and no right is to accrue to such recruits promoted/posted on ad hoc basis from the lower judiciary for the regular promotion on the basis of such appointment.

The appellants while functioning as Sub-Judges, the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India on 27.3.2001 sanctioned 86 additional posts to be established as Fast Track Courts. Initially, the Registrar General, High Court of A.P. recommended for appointments of 41 Additional District and Sessions Courts and three Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Court for a period of five years w.e.f. 1.4.2001. The proposal for establishing the rest of the Courts could not be fructified due to lack of accommodation. On the basis of communication made by the Registrar General, the Government accorded sanction of 44 additional courts with specific staffing pattern. Be it stated, 41 Additional District and Sessions Courts were sanctioned and three courts of Additional Senior Civil Judges court were sanctioned. After the posts were sanctioned, the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service Special Rules for Adhoc Appointments, were framed which came into force with effect from 1.3.2001. Rule 1 of 2001 Rules deals with the constitution of service which stipulates that it shall consist of District and Sessions Judges on adhoc appointment. Rule 2 of 2001 Rules deals with appointment. Rule 7 of 2001 Rules lays down the terms and conditions. Sub-rule 2 of Rule 7 of 2001 Rules provides that a person appointed under Rule 2(1) shall not be regarded as a Member of permanent cadre covered under Rule 2 of the 1958 Rules and shall not be entitled to any preferential right to any other appointment to this service or any other service and their service shall not be treated as regular or permanent under the State Government nor shall be a bar for appointment to the post covered by the 1958 Rules or the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 1962.

Division Bench comprising of Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh termed the contention that if a candidate is appointed on ad hoc basis in respect of a vacancy, he would be regarded as senior to the direct recruit, is “fundamentally fallacious”.

Referring to Brij Mohanlal -1 and 2, the Bench observed “it is quite clear that the appointments in respect of Fast Track Courts are ad hoc in nature and no right is to accrue to such recruits promoted/posted on ad hoc basis from the lower judiciary for the regular promotion on the basis of such appointment. It has been categorically stated that FTC Judges were appointed under a separate set of rules than the rules governing the regular appointment in the State Higher Judicial Services.”

The court further said “conditions in Brij Mohanlal –I (supra) and Brij Mohanlal –II (supra) make it absolutely clear. The submission of Mr. Rao, learned senior counsel for the appellants is that the appellants were appointed under the 1958 rules as the letter of appointment would show and whole thing would depend upon the letter of appointment and not the posting orders issued by the High Court. According to the learned senior counsel, if a candidate is appointed on ad hoc basis in respect of a vacancy, he would be regarded as senior to the direct recruit. Both the submissions, as we perceive, are interwoven but the singular answer to the same would be “fundamentally fallacious”.

Read the Judgment here.