Back
2021 Supreme(AP) 101
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, JJ.
Jagadeeswara Naidu, S/o L.Narasimhulu Naidu - Appellant
Versus
The Principal District Judge, District Court Compound, New Complex and another - Respondents
Writ Petition No.22024 of 2020
Decided on : 05-02-2021
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Gopal Rao Gandrakota
For the Respondents: Mr.N.Ashwani Kumar
Point of law: Eligibility:-Must have retired from service in the Cadres of Administrative Officer/Superintendent in A.P. Judicial Ministerial Services and not completed 65 years of age and the candidates having at least one year of age to complete 65 years of age by the date of appointment
Headnote:
Service Laws – To retain and continue the petitioner as Head Clerk in the office of the VIII Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Chittoor, till he attains the age of 69 years, in view of the proceedings, issued by the High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. – Petitioner herein retired as Superintendent from the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Mobile Court, Chittoor, – Thereafter, a notification was issued by the office of the District Judge, inviting applications for the post of Head Clerk in the Fast Track Court, Chittoor, to work on contract basis, at a consolidated pay of Rs.14,860/-per month. – The eligibility criteria being that the applicant must have retired from service in the cadre of Administrative Officer/Superintendent in A.P. Judicial Ministerial Service and not completed 65 years of age and the candidate must have at least a year to complete 65 years of age by the date of appointment. – As the petitioner claims to be fully qualified and eligible for appointment as Head Clerk, made an application to District Judge, Chittoor, for appointment as Head Clerk. – Vide proceedings L.Dis.No.3753, the petitioner was selected, re-appointed and posted as Head Clerk in the said Court and was working there since then on contract basis. – The material on record also shows that petitioner has entered into an agreement to work on contract basis, which is being renewed every year. – Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in contemplating to terminate the petitioner on 06.01.2021, on his completion of 65 years, the instant Writ Petition came to be filed.
Finding of court: If the respondent therein stood satisfied with the performance of the petitioner and in view of the fact that terms and conditions of the service of the employee of permanent lok adalat are not specified yet, his services can be extended further and that the process of extension was directed to be repeated year after year till the Presiding Officer of the Permanent Lok Adalat desires to dispense with his service. – Therefore, the facts in the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner may not apply to the case on hand. – In view of the judgments of the Division Bench of this court, referred to above; having regard to the contents of the letter, issued by the Registrar to all the Principal District Judges of the State and the contents of notification, dated 03.04.2014, the claim of the petitioner that he should be continued beyond period of 65 years as Head Clerk cannot be countenanced. – It emerges out that upper age limit of 65 years was considered at all material times being the limit up to which retired employee from judicial service could serve as Head Clerk of a Fast Track Court. – Accordingly, court hold that the petitioner has no vested right for extension of his services as Head Clerk in Fast Track Court after completing 65 years of age. – Court see no merit
Result: Writ Petition Dismissed
ORDER :
C.Praveen Kumar, J
1. The present writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to retain and continue the petitioner as Head Clerk in the office of the VIII Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Chittoor, till he attains the age of 69 years, in view of the proceedings, dated 23.04.2011, issued by the High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.
2. The petitioner herein retired as Superintendent from the Court of the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Mobile Court, Chittoor, on 31.01.2014. Thereafter, on 03.04.2014, a notification was issued by the office of the District Judge, Chittoor, inviting applications for the post of Head Clerk in the Fast Track Court, Chittoor, to work on contract basis, at a consolidated pay of Rs.14,860/-per month. The eligibility criteria being that the applicant must have retired from service in the cadre of Administrative Officer/Superintendent in A.P. Judicial Ministerial Service and not completed 65 years of age and the candidate must have at least a year to complete 65 years of age by the date of appointment. As the petitioner claims to be fully qualified and eligible for appointment as Head Clerk, made an application to District Judge, Chittoor, for appointment as Head Clerk. Vide proceedings L.Dis.No.3753, dated 30.04.2014, the petitioner was selected, re-appointed and posted as Head Clerk in the said Court and was working there since then on contract basis. The material on record also shows that petitioner has entered into an agreement to work on contract basis, which is being renewed every year. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in contemplating to terminate the petitioner on 06.01.2021, on his completion of 65 years, the instant Writ Petition came to be filed.
3. It is urged by Sri Gopal Rao Gandrakota, learned counsel for the petitioner, that in view of the circular issued by the Registrar (Vigilance) of the combined High Court on 23.04.2011 and having regard to the orders passed by this Court in the Writ Petition No.15923 of 2014, dated 14.07.2016, and in W.P.M.P. No.35730 of 2016 in Writ Petition No. 28864 of 2016, dated 27.08.2016, the service of the petitioner should be continued till 69 years. He took us through the said judgments, G.Os. and the circular issued to substantiate his submission.
4. On the other hand, Sri N.Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, relied upon two Division Bench judgments of this Court in W.P.No.16652 of 2020, dated 18.09.2020 and W.P.No.18234 of 2020, dated 06-11-2020, in support of his plea.
5. In reply, counsel for the petitioner would contend that the ratio laid down in W.P.No.16652 of 2020 would not apply to the facts of the instant case, as it was a case where the petitioner sought extension of service beyond 69 years of age.
6. The point that arises for consideration is, whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed by him?
7. It is not in dispute that Fast Track Courts were established in the State in a scheme floated by the Government of India in 2001 and few of them are continuing even now as regular courts. Functioning of the courts is being extended from time to time. The scheme itself provided staff pattern for these Courts, apart from the Presiding Officer, who usually is a serving Judge, in case of Courts designated as District Courts, by an officer in the cadre of District & Sessions Judge and in case of Senior Civil Judge Courts, an officer of the same cadre. Staff pattern provided for these courts included the post of Head Clerk. All these posts are of contractual service with consolidated pay per month.
8. As seen from the record, a notification, dated 03.04.2014, came to be issued by the office of the District Judge, Chittoor. The relevant portion of the notification, dated 03.04.2014 reads as under :
“Eligibility:-Must have retired from service in the Cadres of Administrative Officer/Superintendent in A.P. Judicial Ministerial Service
