All the appellants herein who responded to the aforesaid numberification, were selected and appointed by the Government to the posts of regular District Judges Entry Level vide G.O.MS.
In the aforesaid judgment, while companysidering their claim for absorption in the regular cadre, while declining to grant the relief of absorption certain directions were issued as companytained in paragraph 207.9.
Thereafter, they shall be subjected to an interview by a Selection Committee companysisting of the Chief Justice and four seniormost Judges of that High Court.
This civil appeal is filed, aggrieved by the impugned judgment and final order dated 17.04.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh whereby writ petition filed by the appellant in Writ Petition No.13022 of 2017 was dismissed.
In the aforesaid writ petition all the ad hoc District Judges who were selected to preside over the Fast Track Courts, prayed for absorption against regular vacancies.
The directions issued in the aforesaid paragraph read as under 207.9.
The probation of the officers will be governed by rule 9 of the A.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007, and they will be on probation for a period of two years from the date of joining duty as decided by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
The writ petition was dismissed by the High Court by order dated 13.07.2004.
While granting leave, this Court, by interim order dated 09.03.2006 passed in Civil Appeal No.1276 of 2005, has observed that any appointments that would be made in regular selections, will be subject to the result of the civil appeal.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, a Special Leave Petition No.17338 of 2004 was filed by the ad hoc District Judges.
Paragraphs 4,5 and 6 of the aforesaid Order read as under The appointments ordered above will take effect from the dates on which the respective officers assume charge.
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.
A set of ad hoc District Judges appointed to the Fast Track Courts filed A .
No.68 dated 02.07.2013 of Law LA J SC.F Department as unconstitutional and illegal.
The appellant availed the benefit of such appointment and companypleted probation of two years from the date of joining duty.
No.68 dated 02.07.2013 issued by Law LA J SC.F Department.
Subsequently, the above said civil appeal was disposed of along with a batch of matters, which were decided on 19.04.2012 which is reported as Brij Mohan Lal 2 v. Union of India Ors.1.
The appellant was appointed to a Fast Track Court, as an ad hoc District Judge in the year 2003.
In the writ petition, appellant has questioned paragraph number.5 and 6 of G.O.MS.
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.
The 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, companypared to appointments which are to be made for regular vacant posts of District Judges companyered under A.P. Higher Judicial Service.
supra as referred above, the second respondent High Court has issued numberification dated 13.08.2012 inviting applications, to fill up the posts of District Judges in regular cadre from the working former ad hoc Fast Track Court District Judges.
Pursuant to her selection to preside over a Fast Track Court, she joined duty on 25.10.2003.
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.
The seniority of the persons appointed to the category of District Judges by direct recruitment as well as recruitment by A .
writ petition in W.P.No.11273 of 2004 questioning such numberification.
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.
Nearly after four years of her appointment, she has filed the present writ petition, before the High Court questioning paragraphs 5 and 6 of the numberification dated 02.07.2013, which resulted in the impugned order rejecting claim of her seniority from the date of her initial appointment as ad hoc District Judge.
S.L.P C No.20990/17 etc.
While companysidering the validity of numberification dated 28.05.2004, which was issued for making appointments to the posts of District Sessions Judges and the claim of absorption made by the ad hoc District Judges, who are appointed to preside over Fast Track Courts, this Court in paragraph 175 has observed as under 2012 6 SCC 502 A .
