IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATE : 11.02.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL W.P. NO. 3225 OF 2008 AND M.P. NOS. 1, 2 & 3 OF 2008 V.Subramanian .. Petitioner - Vs - 1. The Registrar General High Court of Judicature at Madras Chennai 600 104. 2. The Under Secretary Debt Recovery Tribunals Ministry of Finance Departmental of Financial Services Jeevan Deep Building, Sansad Marg New Delhi 110 001. .. Respondents Writ petition filed for the issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the entire records in connection with impugned proceedings of the 1st respondent R.O.C. No.648/2008/B2 dated 29.1.2008 and quash the impugned proceeding of the 1st respondent R.O.C. No.648/2008/B2 dated 29.1.2008 and, consequently, direct the 1st respondent to forward the petitioner's application forthwith to the 2nd respondent. For Petitioner : Mr. M.Venkatachalapathy, SC, for Mr. M.Sriram For Respondents : Mr. D.Sreenivasan, AGP ORDER S.J.MUKHOPADHAYA, J. The petitioner, a member of Tamil Nadu State Subordinate Judicial Service, functioning as adhoc Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, requested this Court, in its administrative side, to forward his application for the post of 'Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal' to the Under Secretary (Debts Recovery Tribunals), Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, New Delhi. The High Court, by impugned order dated 30th Jan., 2008, informed the officer that his representation was considered and the same was rejected. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner being an officer of the rank of District Judge is eligible for appointment to the post of Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal. By impugned order, his prayer to forward his application has been rejected without assigning any ground therein. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, the petitioner being not a regular District Judge, he cannot claim parity with the regular District Judges. Such submission was contested by learned counsel for the petitioner in view of following eligibility criteria :- "Eligibility : A person, who is/or has been or is qualified to be District Judge, is eligible." According to counsel for the petitioner, even if it is accepted that the petitioner is not a regular District Judge, he being qualified to be a District Judge, is eligible as per the requisition made for appointment to the post in question. 3. We have heard the parties, noticed the rival contentions and perused the records. 4. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been promoted in the regular cadre of District Judge/Additional District Judge in the Tamil Nadu State Higher Judicial Service. He is a Civil Judge, Sr. Division and by way of adhoc arrangement, he has been made adhoc Additional District Judge for disposal of cases pending before the Fast Track Courts constituted for limited purpose. From the records it appears that the petitioner claims himself as Additional District Judge, distinct from adhoc District Judge of Fast Track Court. In such capacity he cannot claim his appointment as Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal. So far as his substantive capacity as Civil Judge, Sr. Division is concerned, he may claim eligible on the ground that he is 'qualified to be a District Judge'. But from the records it appears that the High Court has not forwarded application of any adhoc Additional District Judge, on the ground "not feasible". 5. It is known to the judicial officers and the court that Fast Track Courts have been constituted by the order of the Supreme Court for immediate disposal of cases and officers of the lower rank, such as Civil Judges, Sr. Division, have been allowed to hold such Fast Track Courts by adhoc arrangement by promoting them as adhoc Additional District Judge. If in such an administrative exigency, the High Court decided not to release any of its adhoc Additional District Judge, but forwarded the application of only retired District Judges or regular District Judges, we find no illegality in such decision. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. In the facts and circumstances, no relief could be granted. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar GLN To 1. The Registrar General High Court of Judicature at Madras Chennai 600 104. 2. The Under Secretary Debt Recovery Tribunals Ministry of Finance Departmental of Financial Services Jeevan Deep Building, Sansad Marg New Delhi 110 001. 1 cc To Mr.M.Sriram, Advocate, SR.6595. 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.6685. W.P. NO. 3225 OF 2008 KLT(CO) RVL 16.02.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/