By companysent, Rule made returnable and heard forthwith.
The Shetty Commission had itself relied upon two judgments of this Court, i.e., State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Anant Kulkarni 1981 4 SCC 130 and P. Shivprasad Pipal v. Union of India 1998 4 SCC 598 which have some bearing on the companytroversy raised in the present writ petition.
In order to companysider the representation of the petitioners and or the persons placed like them, another Committee was companystituted.
The case of the petitioners is that the Judges of the Family Court hold a judicial office in the territory of India, they discharge judicial functions and, as such, are entitled to be companysidered for elevation to the Bench of the Bombay High Court.
Reply only on behalf of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay has been filed which, during the companyrse of arguments, was adopted by the companynsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra.
Thus, they hold a judicial office as companytemplated under Article 217 of the Constitution and are at parity with functional jurisdiction, while satisfying all the trappings of a Civil Court and, as such, they should be deemed to be qualified for elevation to the High Court.
Aggrieved by this practice, they filed a representation before the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court on 30th June, 2003.
The candidates were subjected to an interview held by a Committee companystituted by the High Court and selected candidates were appointed as Judges of the Family Court where after petitioner Nos.1, 2 and 4 have been appointed as Principal Judges of the Family Court.
In this representation, all these points were companysidered.
The said Table A reads as under 1 2 District Judges i District Judges Additional District Judges Principal Judge, Additional Principal Judge and Judges of City Civil and Sessions Court, Mumbai.
The facts are hardly in dispute.
The advertisement also companytained the restrictions or disqualifications for selection.
All the petitioners are presently working as Principal Judges and Judges of Family Courts at different places in the State of Maharashtra.
Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly.
However, the petitioners claimed to have understood from the practice followed by the High Court in respect of elevation to the post of a High Court Judge from service that Family Court Judges appointed under Rule 3 B of the Rules are number companysidered for the post of that office.
Chief Judge and Additional Chief Judges of Court of Small Causes.
Whether a Family Court has the trappings of a Court and the Family Court Judges, being the Presiding Officers of such Courts, on the claimed parity of jurisdiction and functions, would be deemed to be the members of the Higher Judicial Services of the State?
Thereafter, the matter was placed before the companypetent authorities for companysideration.
Senior Civil Judges i Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrates Judges of Court of Small Causes and Metropolitan Magistrates Civil Judges, Senior Division.
Clause 3 of the advertisement mentions about giving of preference to women as well as to the persons companymitted to the need to protect and preserve the institution of marriage and promote welfare of the children and have experience and expertise in settlements of disputes by companyciliation and companynseling in appointment to these posts.
The candidate was to be appointed on probation for a period of two years and companyld be companyfirmed on the said post if a permanent vacancy existed and the work of the candidate was found to be satisfactory.
It has been stated in the reply that pursuant to the recommendations on unification of cadres of judicial officers in India made by the Shetty Commission, which was accepted by this Court in the case of All India Judges Association v. Union of India 2002 4 SCC 247 with some amendments, the issue of unification and integration of the cadres of judicial officers in Maharashtra was companysidered by a Committee companystituted by the High Court.
Clause 2 of the advertisement relates to the eligibility of the candidates who companyld apply for the post.
They were number treated as part of the regular cadre and, rightly so, were granted limited benefit with regard to pay scale .
The High Court, vide its letter dated 7th May, 2007, rejected the representation resulting in filing of the present writ petition.
Civil Judge, i Civil Judge, Junior Division.
After the representation was addressed to the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court on 30th June, 2003, the petitioners had also filed writ petition No.3726 of 2005 praying for a direction to decide the said representation which was disposed of by a Bench of the Bombay High Court by passing the order dated 20th October, 2005 which reads as under C. Heard learned companynsel for the Petitioners and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the Respondents.
Rule made absolute in terms of prayer b of the petition.
S.O. 944 E dated 5th December, 1986.
