Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J.—Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava for the petitioners, Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Samir Sharma for the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1.

2. The issue involved herein is the entitlement of the petitioners to regularization of their ad hoc services against sanctioned posts in the regular cadre of service in the District Courts and the validity of the orders passed by the concerned District Judge and the High Court, on the Administrative Side, in this regard.

3. The scheme of Fast Track Courts was introduced by the Union of India and funds were allocated for the said purpose by the 11th Finance Commission. The said Courts were created for short duration, which were extended from time to time. Ultimately, the aforesaid arrangement came to an end on 31.3.2011 when the Union of India refused to extend further financial assistance for the said Courts. Thereafter, in some States, the Fast Track Courts have continued and the expenses have been borne by the concerned State Government, whereas in other States, the employees engaged for running of the said Courts have been absorbed in the regular Courts on such terms and conditions as has been deemed fit.

4. An advertisement was issued by the District Judge, Baghpat on 27.5.2003 inviting applications for selection and appointment of Stenographers/Clerks/Typists and Class-IV employees for the Fast Track Courts referred above and in pursuance thereof a selection was held wherein the petitioners participated and on being found fit for the post in question, were selected and appointed on ad hoc basis with a clear stipulation that the post in question were purely temporary and likely to continue for short duration unless abolished earlier and that no lien etc. will be claimed for further appointment on these posts.

5. The Fast Track Courts Scheme continued till 2005 when the same was withdrawn, however, on revival of the said scheme in the same year, the ex-ad hoc employees, such as the petitioners, who were earlier working, were allowed to continue on the same terms and conditions but with the condition that the salary shall be payable only from the date of fresh joining. The earlier period was to be counted for other purposes, except salary. This was provided by the Circular of the High Court dated 24.5.2005. The employees of the Fast Track Courts who were declared surplus on account of shifting of such Courts from one judiciary to another, were to be considered for absorption as per the Circular dated 27.7.1994.

6. On 28.8.2010, a Government Order was sent by the State Government to the Registrar General of the Allahabad High Court communicating extension of the Fast Track Courts w.e.f. 1.6.2010 to 28.2.2011 subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein. The said Government Order also mentioned that Union of India vide its letter dated 9.8.2010 had informed that the financial assistance provided by it for the Fast Track Courts for the period up to 31.3.2011, was limited to 480 lacs per year and any expenditure beyond it will have to be borne by the State Government, therefore, the High Court should consider keeping the post of Presiding Officer vacant as and when the incumbent relinquishes the post on account of promotion or other such reason and not to fill up the same and also to absorb the supporting staff elsewhere.

7. On 18.3.2011, a Circular was issued by the Registrar General, High Court, Allahabad to all the District Judges in the State to the effect that if they wanted to make appointments in the regular establishment of Class III and IV of their judgeship, they will leave vacant or keep reserved posts for the purpose of adjustment of the employees of the Fast Track Courts working in their judgeship.

8. On 31.3.2011, presumably, consequent to the refusal of the Union of India to extend further financial assista