2019 Supreme(SC) 878

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. BOBDE, R. SUBHASH REDDY, B.R. GAVAI, JJ.
Kum C. Yamini – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No.6296 of 2019 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.20990 of 2017] with Civil Appeal No.6297 of 2019 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.12535 of 2018]; Civil Appeal No.6298 of 2019 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.13046 of 2018]; And Civil Appeal No.6299 of 2019 [Arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.28302 of 2018]
Decided on : 14-08-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Claim of seniority will depend upon several factors, nature of appointment, rules as per which appointments are made and when appointments are made, were such appointments to cadre posts or not.
(2) If a person is not appointed to any post in the cadre, such person cannot claim any seniority over persons who are appointed in vacant posts in the cadre.

Headnote:

(A) Service Law – Seniority – Higher Judicial Service – Rejection of claim of seniority from date of her initial appointment as ad hoc District Judge – Claim of appellants that they were appointed as ad hoc District Judges by following procedure which is similar to procedure for appointments to sanctioned posts in regular cadre, is no ground to accede to their request to reckon their seniority in permanent cadre of District Judges, from their initial appointment as District Judges for Fast Track Courts – Appointments which came to be made for selecting District Judges for Fast Track Courts sanctioned under the 11th Finance Scheme are totally different and distinct, compared to appointments which are to be made for regular vacant posts of District Judges covered under A.P. Higher Judicial Service – If a person is not appointed to any post in the cadre, such person cannot claim any seniority over persons who are appointed in vacant posts in the cadre – Fast Track Courts which were sanctioned initially for five years from grants of 11th Finance Commission, were continued in some States beyond such period with assistance, from States and such Fast Track Courts were discontinued in some other States – Merely on the ground that they were selected by following same procedure akin to that of regular selections, is no ground to consider their claim for grant of seniority from date of initial appointment – When their claim for regularisation/absorption and challenge to notification issued in year 2004 for making selections to vacant regular posts of District Judges is rejected by High Court and confirmed by this Court, appellants have no basis to claim seniority from date of initial appointment – Though appellant claims seniority over persons who are appointed in regular vacant posts forming part of cadre strength but they are not even made parties – On this ground also, claim of appellants deserves rejection. (Para 13)

(B) Service Law – Seniority – Higher Judicial Service – Rejection of claim of seniority from date of her initial appointment as ad hoc District Judge – Claim of seniority will depend upon several factors, nature of appointment, rules as per which appointments are made and when appointments are made, were such appointments to cadre posts or not – When appellants were not appointed to any regular posts in A.P. Judicial Service, appellants cannot claim seniority based on their ad hoc appointments to preside over Fast Track Courts – However, appellants and all others who are similarly placed are to be given benefit of counting their service rendered as Fast Track Judges, for the purpose of pensionary and other retiral benefits. (Paras 14 and 17)

Facts of the Case:

Appellant was appointed to a Fast Track Court, as an ad hoc District Judge in the year 2003. The appellant was practising as an advocate at the relevant time, and the appointment was made pursuant to selections made for appointment to the post of ad hoc District Judges. Relief claimed in these matters is same, as such they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment and order.

Findings of Court:

We are in agreement with the view taken by a two Judge Bench of this Court. Resultantly, while rejecting their claim for grant of seniority from the date of their initial appointment as Fast Track Court District Judges and other reliefs, we direct that the appellants and all others who are similarly placed are to be given benefit of counting their service rendered as Fast Track Judges, for the purpose of pensionary and other retiral benefits.

Result : Appeals disposed of with observations and directions.