SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. Sikri, S. Abdul Nazeer, JJ.
High Court of Hyderabad for the State of Telangana & State of Andhra Pradesh, Through Its Registrar General Etc. – Appellants
Vs.
P. Murali Mohana Reddy & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 73-74 of 2019
Decided On : 25-01-2019
(1985) 3 SCC 721 737; (1983) 3 SCC 33 737; (2008) 3 SCC 512 737; (2010) 13 SCC 467 737; (2013) 7 SCC 737 – Referred
(b) Service law – Recruitment – Judicial service – Appointment/regularization of Ad hoc Fast Track Judges – Written examination of 150 marks and interview for 100 marks – Qualifying marks fixed for written examination as also for aggregate – Qualifying marks for aggregate fixed at 40% of aggregate for general candidates and 35% for SC/ST/OBC candidates – Instantly advertisement not specifying any qualifying marks separately for interview – Selection committee rejecting seven candidates including four respondents as not securing qualifying marks in interview – Out of four respondents two, on rounding off, securing 40% marks viz. 100 marks in aggregate – Directed to be absorbed/regularized – Other two not securing qualifying marks in aggregate – However, in view of their long service High Court directed to give them another opportunity and hold selection test within a period of six months. (Para 3, 14, 21, 22)
(2012) 6 SCC 502 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Pursuant to the directions in Brij Mohan Lal's case on the aspect of establishment and functioning of Fast Track Courts, the State of Andhra Pradesh created several Fast Track Court throughout the State of Andhra Pradesh. After establishing such Fast Track Court, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued orders dated October 06, 2003 appointing 20 advocates (19 advocates and 1 APP) from Bar on ad-hoc basis (in terms of Rules of Andhra Pradesh State High Judicial Service Special Rules for Ad hoc appointment 2001) to preside over the Fast Track Courts. From the date of their appointment, the respondents and the similarly situated persons (all over the country) were claiming absorption permanently to the post of District and Sessions Judge (Entry Level). Ultimately, Supreme Court in Brij Mohan Lal's case directed all the States to conduct written examination for the ad-hoc Fast Track Court District Judges, who were appointed directly from the Bar and presiding/presided over the Fast Track Courts, and to initiate the process of selection for absorption of those officials.
All the 19 Adhoc Fast Track Court District Judges submitted their applications.
After completion of interviews for 19 candidates, the Committee found that twelve candidates were eligible to be appointed as regular Additional District Judges. They have since been regularised.
Other seven candidates including the four respondents did not secure the required percentage of marks.
The writ petitions filed by respondents have been allowed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
There not being any stipulation, either in the advertisement or the Rules, for separate qualifying marks for interview, selection ought to be made on basis of qualifying marks in written examination and aggregate.
Result: Appeals disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Sikri. J.
In these appeals, challenge is laid to the judgment dated March 25, 2015 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of judicature at Hyderabad, whereby two writ petitions filed by the respondents herein have been allowed. There are, in all, four persons who had filed these two writ petitions and who are appointed as Additional District and Session Judges in the erstwhile State of Andhra Pradesh (now States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana) as Adhoc Fast Track Court District Judges.
2. The issue of appointment of such Adhoc Judges came up for consideration before this Court in Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India & Ors., (2012) 6 SCC 502 whereby this Court prescribed the modalities and procedure to be undertaken for absorption of such Judges on regular basis. It included qualifying test as well as viva voce test. Pursuant to these directions, the appellant herein, namely, High Court held the qualifying examination and also conducted interviews. These four persons (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondents') were considered not qualified for absorption on regular basis. The respondents, feeling aggrieved by the decision of the appellant, had challenged the same in the aforesaid two writ petitions which have been allowed in the following terms:
"31. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the decision of the Selection Committee declaring that the petitioners and each of them are not eligible to be absorbed for not securing the minimum qualifying marks in viva voce or aggregate qualifying marks in written and viva voce is illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, we direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners and each of them as they have qualified in the written test and have also taken viva voce test. This appointment shall be made within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order, subject to compliance with other formalities as required under law."
3. Some facts relevant for deciding the controversy, may now be taken note of:
Pursuant to the directions of this Court in Brij Mohan Lal's case on the aspect of establishment and functioning of Fast Track Courts, the State of Andhra Pradesh created several Fast Track Court throughout the State of Andhra Pradesh. After establishing such Fast Track Court, the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued orders dated October 06, 2003 appointing 20 advocates (19 advocates and 1 APP) from Bar on ad-hoc basis (in terms of Rules of Andhra Pradesh State High Judicial Service Special Rules for Ad hoc appointment 2001) to preside over the Fast Track Courts vide GOMs. No. 1798, dated October 06, 2003. From the date of their appointment, the respondents and the similarly situated persons (all over the country) were claiming absorption permanently to the post of District and Sessions Judge (Entry Level). Ultimately, this Court in Brij Mohan Lal's case directed all the States to conduct written examination for the ad-hoc Fast Track Court District Judges, who were appointed directly from the Bar and presiding/presided over the Fast Track Courts, and to initiate the process of selection for absorption of those officials. This Court in the aforesaid case also specified the mode and manner in which ad-hoc Fast Track District Judges are to be absorbed in the State Judicial Service. In nutshell, the relevant directions can be summarised:
(a) Written examination is to be conducted for 150 marks.
(b) Interview is to be conducted for 100 marks.(c) Qualifying marks in the written examination shall be aggregate 40% for general candidates and 35% for SC/ST/OBC candidates.
(d) Each of the appointees shall be entitled to one mark per year of service in the FTCs, which shall form part of the interview marks.
4. In pursuance of the aforesaid directions, the High Court placed the matter before the Committee of Judges constituted for recruitment to the cadre of District
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.