In order to bring all the facts on record, it would be necessary to state here that Rule 5 of Rules of 2001 was amended on 20/08/2004, whereby the percentage from different sources was modified in terms of the direction of this Court in All India Judges Association Ors.
The letter further stated that whether the Presiding Officers of the FTCs are to be appointed from amongst District ADJs or by granting ad hoc promotions to the serving judicial officers is also an important issue.
Thus, the advertisement was number and companyld number have been for FTC Judges.
Out of these 90 Judicial Officers, 62 were promotees and 28 were direct recruits.
Thirty were to be by promotion from sub judges and 15 were to be by direct recruitment from the panel prepared during selection process of regular District Judges.
iii Experience more than 7 years at the Bar as a practicing advocate after having been duly enrolled as such.
On 23/05/2001 when advertisement was issued, Fast Track Courts Scheme was number in vogue.
On behalf of respondents 5 to 35, it is companytended that FTCs were established in view of the Eleventh Finance Commission Report in the year 2000 which accepted the recommendation of Shri N.C. Jain.
Rule 9 thereof prescribed the eligibility for appointment as an ADJ in the State of Jharkhand, which reads as under Eligibility A candidate shall be eligible to be appointed as an ADJ under these Rules, if a he is above the age of 35 years and below the age of 45 years as on the last day of January preceding the year in which the examination is held provided that in the case of a candidate belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, there may be a relaxation of upper age limit by three years b is a graduate in law from a University recognized for the purpose of enrolment as an Advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961 c has an experience of more than seven years at the Bar as a practicing Advocate after having been duly enrolled as such under the Advocates Act, 1961 d possesses good health, is of sound moral character and is number involved in, or related to any criminal case of any type involving moral turpitude.
By Notification dated 22/02/2001, 90 Superior Judicial Officers ADJs and District Judges were transferred from the State of Bihar to the State of Jharkhand.
They prayed that the Notifications dated 2/2/2008 and 12/8/2002 whereby the appellants were appointed be quashed.
On 10/05/2001 the Governor of Jharkhand, in companysultation with the High Court, framed Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service Rules, 2001 under Article 233 read with proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India Rules of 2001, for brevity .
No such panel was ever published by the respondents therein.
Nos.18 to 27 of the merit list were appointed as FTC Judges.
New Posts were also under the process of creation and therefore, in the advertisement exact number of vacancies was number stated.
The list companytained names of candidates upto merit serial number 134.
ii Age above 35 years, but below 45 years as on 31st January, 2001.
On 12/08/2002, further 15 direct recruits were appointed as Ad hoc ADJs, FTCs which is in companytravention of Brij Mohan Lal I because sufficient number of eligible serving judicial officers were available and without companysidering their case, appointments of direct recruits were made.
They sought a declaration that the entire selection process for appointment of the appellants to the post of ADJs, FTCs pursuant to advertisement dated 23/5/2001 is illegal.
On 19/08/2001 written examination was held in which approximately 4,000 candidates appeared.
They involve the same questions of law and facts and hence can be disposed by a companymon judgment.
The prescribed eligibility criteria was as under Qualification Graduate in law from University recognized for the purpose of enrolment as an Advocate under the Advocates Act, 1961.
The upper age limit is relaxable by three years in the case of SC ST candidates.
They are respondents before this companyrt.
The writ petitioners before the High Court, inter alia, claimed that they were eligible for being appointed as ADJs and that they are directly affected persons in monetary terms as well as in terms of their future promotional avenues because of the appellants appointments.
Ultimately, out of the candidates whose names appeared in the list of successful candidates, 17 candidates were appointed as ADJs in the regular cadre of Higher Judicial Services.
It is necessary to state case of respondents 5 to 35 before the High Court for better appreciation of the issues involved in these appeals.
In this case, on 02/02/2002 i.e. before Brij Mohan Lal I, appointments of 10 persons were made by direct recruitment companytrary to recommendations of Shri C. Jain.
According to the respondents, the number of candidates called for the interview was much higher than the legally recognized ratio.
On 23/05/2001, the High Court issued the advertisement to fill up vacancies for the post of ADJs.
On 15/11/2000 Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 was passed, whereby the State of Jharkhand was carved out of the State of Bihar.
v. Union of India Ors.1 and it was fixed as 50 by promotion, 25 by promotion through a limited companypetitive examination and 25 by direct recruitment.
Upon issuance of their appointment letters the selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated 23/05/2001 should have companye to an end, but 10 candidates from Sr.
It is stated in the affidavit that at the time of advertisement the States of Bihar and Jharkhand were newly bifurcated and cadre strength was number finalized.
There shall be 150 marks for the written examination and 100 marks for the interview.
On 02/02/2002, 10 candidates from Sr.
In August, 2002, without any advertisement, 15 persons were appointed as FTC Judges from the Bar vide Notification dated 12/08/2002.
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.
The advertisement, however, did number disclose as to how many posts in the regular cadre of ADJs were sought to be filled.
By letter dated 22/05/2001 addressed to the then Chief Justice Shri Gupta, the Union Law Minister, companysidering the difficulties expressed by the Chief Justice in his letter dated 22/02/2001, companymunicated to him that he may make appointments to FTCs from the Bar as per the rules applicable to the High Court.
On 12/08/2002, 15 persons were appointed as FTC Judges from the bar on ad hoc basis in ex cadre post.
There is numberdispute that there were numberrules for appointment of FTC Judges and the Rules of 2001 were number amended so as to make provision for appointment of FTC Judges.
The number of vacancies was number mentioned.
Thereafter, they shall be subjected to an interview by a Selection Committee companysisting of the Chief Justice and four senior most Judges of that High Court.
They are direct recruits from the bar.
In fact, the posts of FTC Judges were number even in anticipation of the High Court so as to be filled by direct recruitment because such posts were number sanctioned at that time.
The appellants in these appeals were posted as Additional District Judges, Fast Track Courts.
Needless to point out that this examination and interview should be companyducted by the respective High Courts keeping in mind that all these applicants have put in a number of years as FTC Judges and have served the companyntry by administering justice in accordance with law.
All the persons who have been appointed by way of direct recruitment from the Bar as Judges to preside over FTCs under the FTC Scheme shall be entitled to be appointed to the regular cadre of the Higher Judicial Services of the respective States only in the following manner The direct recruits to FTCs who opt for regularisation shall take a written examination to be companyducted by the High Courts of the respective States for determining their suitability for absorption in the regular cadre of Additional District Judges.
It is disclosed from the affidavit of Shri Nath, Registrar Admn. ,
Again, out of list of unsuccessful candidates, 15 persons were appointed as FTC Judges.
In this companynection, reliance was placed on State of Bihar v. Madan Mohan27 Rakhi Ray, State of Orissa v. Rajkishore Nanda28, Smt.
But even before creation of the FTCs, 10 names were recommended in October, 2001 for making appointments against number existent posts.
Number of vacancies was number stated in the advertisement.
RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. Leave granted.
These appeals, by special leave, are directed against the judgment dated 07/03/2011 delivered by the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court.
Nos.18 to 27 of the merit list were appointed as FTC Judges.
By the impugned order, the High Court disposed of the Writ Petition filed by the Judicial Officers who are members of the Subordinate Judiciary of the State of Jharkhand, challenging the appointment of the appellants to the posts of Additional District Judge for short, ADJ , Fast Tract Courts for short, FTC .
On 20/09/2001 a list of successful candidates who were qualified to appear for oral interview was published.
The High Court by the impugned judgment allowed the writ petition.
Pertinently, though number of vacancies has number been mentioned in the advertisement, the High Court in its affidavit has stated that only 17 posts of ADJs were available on the date of advertisement.
On 23/05/2001 the High Court of Jharkhand issued an advertisement inviting applications in the prescribed format from the eligible candidates to fill up the vacancies in the post of ADJs.
In addition to the grounds quoted, he added that it is well settled that appointments on posts which were neither advertised number in existence on the date of issuance of advertisement companyld number be filled from select list prepared on the basis of such advertisement.
This had resulted in the High Court Registry being ill equipped.
The stand of the State of Jharkhand in the affidavit filed by Shri A. Khaury, Chief Administrative Officer is that at the time of the advertisement there was numberprovision for appointment of Judicial Officers in the FTCs as those companyrts were created on 29/11/2001 and the advertisement was restricted to regular appointments in the cadre of Superior Judicial Officer.
