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.
The appellants were aggrieved on account of them being treated as fresh recruits and requested for benefits of pay protection and other benefits of companytinuance of service.
A parallel development was the allocation by the 11th Finance Commission of Rs.502.90 crores under Article 275 of the Constitution of India, for the establishment of companyrts described as the Fast Track companyrts.1,734 companyrts in various States were envisaged to deal with long pending cases, specifically, Sessions cases.
A challenge was laid to this Scheme, known as the Fast Track Courts Scheme, in various High Courts primarily on the ground that there was numberconstitutional sanction for employment of retired Judges, number were there effective guidelines in operation.
These Government officials joining on or after 1.12.2004 were mandatorily required to procure a new Permanent Retirement Account Number PRAN .
The Judicial Officers assailed the appointment of persons to the post of Fast Track companyrts and suffice to say that the companytest was carried right till this Court, decided in Mahesh Chandra Verma v. State of Jharkhand3.
The challenge laid before the Jharkhand High Court impugning the aforesaid selection process succeeded on 29.8.2008 but in the Special Leave Petition SLP filed, the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court was set aside in Srikant Roy v. State of Jharkhand2.
We may also numberice that the existing system of pension and General Provident Fund ceased to exist for Government servants who joined in service on or after 1.12.2004 and in lieu of the same a new Contributory Pension Scheme was introduced for Government officials, who joined service on or after 1.12.2004.
The relevant paragraphs are as under 207.9.
In the year 2008, the High Court issued a new selection process for 34 posts of Additional District Judges through a limited companypetitive examination to be held on 31.8.2008.
This resulted in the writ petitions being filed in the High Court where some interim protection was granted but ultimately, the writ petitions have been dismissed by the companymon impugned order dated 14.10.2015.
This request was, however, rejected by the State Government.
These matters were transferred to the Supreme Court and all these matters were dealt with in the judgment in Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India Ors.
However, they were treated as fresh recruits.
These 15 candidates were appointed on 23.9.2002.
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.
Prior to the judgment in Mahesh Chandra Verma4 the issue of what is to be done with the Judges appointed to the Fast Track companyrt after the funding was stopped by the Central Government, and when 2 2017 1 SCC 457 3 2012 11 SCC 656 4 supra the State Government also had a problem of funding, formed subject matter of directions in Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India 5 II.
There shall be 150 marks for the written examination and 100 marks for the interview.
