Case: KUM C. YAMINI Vs. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

which is similar to the procedure for appointments to the sanctioned posts in the regular cadre, is no ground to accede to their request to reckon their seniority in the permanent cadre of District Judges, from their initial appointment as the District Judges for the Fast Track Courts. The appointments which came to be made for selecting District Judges for Fast Track Courts sanctioned under the 11 th Finance Scheme are totally different and distinct, compared to appointments which are to be made for regular vacant posts of District Judges covered under A.P. Higher Judicial Service. If a person is not appointed to any post in the cadre, such person cannot claim any seniority over the persons who are appointed in vacant posts in the cadre. The Fast Track Courts which were sanctioned initially for five years from the grants of 11 th Finance Commission, were continued in some States beyond such period with the assistance, from States and such Fast Track Courts were discontinued in some other States. Merely on the ground that they were selected by following the same procedure akin to that of regular selections, is no ground to consider their claim for grant of seniority from the date of initial appointment. When their claim for regularisation/absorption and challenge to notification issued in the year 2004 for making selections to the vacant regular posts of District Judges is rejected by the High Court and confirmed by this Court, we are of the view that the appellants have no basis to claim seniority from the date of initial appointment. In any event, having applied in response to the notification issued by the High Court in the year 2013 after availing the benefit of appointment, it is not open to the appellants to question the conditions imposed in the order which is in conformity with rules. Undisputedly, appellant was appointed as ad hoc District Judges to preside over the Fast Track Courts only. Initially when she was not appointed to a post or category of posts, forming part of cadre strength in such category, appellant cannot claim any seniority over the persons regularly appointed in the category of posts forming part of cadre strength. There is yet another ground to reject the claim of the appellant. Though the appellant claims seniority over the persons who are appointed in regular vacant posts forming part of cadre strength but they are not even made parties. On this ground also, the claim of the appellants deserves rejection. 14. We have perused the judgment relied on by the appellant party in person, in the case of Rudra Kumar Sain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (supra). In the aforesaid case, issue relates to claim of seniority between direct recruits and promotees. Learned senior counsel Sri Venkataramani, has also relied on the judgments of this Court in the case of Brij Mohan Lal (1) v. Union of India & Ors. (supra); in the case of Debabrata Dash & Anr. v. Jatindra Prasad Das & Ors. (supra); in the case of V. Venkata Prasad & Ors. v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (supra) and in the case of Brij Mohan Lal (2) v. Union of India & Ors. (supra). We have looked into the judgments referred above by the learned senior counsel Sri Venkataramani and the party in person. Having regard to issue involved in the present appeals, we are of the view that the ratio decided in the aforesaid cases would not render any assistance in support of their claim in these cases. The claim of seniority will depend upon several factors, nature of appointment, rules as per which the appointments are made and when appointments are made, were such appointments to the cadre posts or not etc. When the appellants were not appointed to any regular posts in the A.P. Judicial Service, appellants cannot claim seniority based on their ad hoc appointments to preside over Fast Track Courts. We are of the view that the ratio decided in the said judgments relied on by the appellants would not render any assistance in support of their case. 15. On the other hand, the judgment in the case of V. Venkata Prasad & Ors. v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (supra), this Court has, in clear terms, while considering A.P. State Higher Judicial Service Special Rules for Ad Hoc Appointments, 2001 held that such appointments in respect of Fast Track Courts are ad hoc in nature and no right accrues to such appointees. The aforesaid view of this Court clearly supports the case of the respondents. Paragraph 25 of the said case which is relevant for the purpose of these cases reads as under : 25. From the aforesaid two authorities, it is quite clear that the appointments in respect of Fast Track Courts are ad hoc in nature and no right is to accrue to such recruits promoted/posted on ad hoc basis from the lower judiciary for the regular promotion on the basis of such appointment. It has been categorically stated that FTC Judges were appointed under a separate set of rules than the rules governing the regular appointment in the State Higher Judicial Services. 16. In the civil appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C)No.28302 of 2018, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants be at least given the benefit of counting the service rendered by them in Fast Track Courts for pensionary and other benefits. In support of his claim, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Mahesh Chandra Verma v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. wherein this Court has considered the very same issue and held that the service rendered as Fast Track Court Judges is to be counted for their length of service, for the purpose of determining their pension and other retiral benefits. 17. We have perused the aforesaid judgment and we are in agreement with the view taken by a two Judge Bench of this Court.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]13. The claim of the appellants that they were appointed as ad hoc District Judges by following the procedure which is similar to the procedure for appointments to the sanctioned posts in the regular cadre, is no ground to accede to their request to reckon their seniority in the permanent cadre of District Judges, from their initial appointment as the District Judges for the Fast Track Courts. The appointments which came to be made for selecting District Judges for Fast Track Courts sanctioned under the 11 th Finance Scheme are totally different and distinct, compared to appointments which are to be made for regular vacant posts of District Judges covered under A.P. Higher Judicial Service. If a person is not appointed to any post in the cadre, such person cannot claim any seniority over the persons who are appointed in vacant posts in the cadre. The Fast Track Courts which were sanctioned initially for five years from the grants of 11 th Finance Commission, were continued in some States beyond such period with the assistance, from States and such Fast Track Courts were discontinued in some other States. Merely on the ground that they were selected by following the same procedure akin to that of regular selections, is no ground to consider their claim for grant of seniority from the date of initial appointment. When their claim for regularisation/absorption and challenge to notification issued in the year 2004 for making selections to the vacant regular posts of District Judges is rejected by the High Court and confirmed by this Court, we are of the view that the appellants have no basis to claim seniority from the date of initial appointment. In any event, having applied in response to the notification issued by the High Court in the year 2013 after availing the benefit of appointment, it is not open to the appellants to question the conditions imposed in the order which is in conformity with rules. Undisputedly, appellant was appointed as ad hoc District Judges to preside over the Fast Track Courts only. Initially when she was not appointed to a post or category of posts, forming part of cadre strength in such category, appellant cannot claim any seniority over the persons regularly appointed in the category of posts forming part of cadre strength. There is yet another ground to reject the claim of the appellant. Though the appellant claims seniority over the persons who are appointed in regular vacant posts forming part of cadre strength but they are not even made parties. On this ground also, the claim of the appellants deserves rejection14. We have perused the judgment relied on by the appellant party in person, in the case of Rudra Kumar Sain & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (supra). In the aforesaid case, issue relates to claim of seniority between direct recruits and promotees. Learned senior counsel Sri Venkataramani, has also relied on the judgments of this Court in the case of Brij Mohan Lal (1) v. Union of India & Ors. (supra); in the case of Debabrata Dash & Anr. v. Jatindra Prasad Das & Ors. (supra); in the case of V. Venkata Prasad & Ors. v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (supra) and in the case of Brij Mohan Lal (2) v. Union of India & Ors. (supra). We have looked into the judgments referred above by the learned senior counsel Sri Venkataramani and the party in person. Having regard to issue involved in the present appeals, we are of the view that the ratio decided in the aforesaid cases would not render any assistance in support of their claim in these cases. The claim of seniority will depend upon several factors, nature of appointment, rules as per which the appointments are made and when appointments are made, were such appointments to the cadre posts or not etc. When the appellants were not appointed to any regular posts in the A.P. Judicial Service, appellants cannot claim seniority based on their ad hoc appointments to preside over Fast Track Courts. We are of the view that the ratio decided in the said judgments relied on by the appellants would not render any assistance in support of their case15. On the other hand, the judgment in the case of V. Venkata Prasad & Ors. v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (supra), this Court has, in clear terms, while considering A.P. State Higher Judicial Service Special Rules for Ad Hoc Appointments, 2001 held that such appointments in respect of Fast Track Courts are ad hoc in nature and no right accrues to such appointees. The aforesaid view of this Court clearly supports the case of the respondents. Paragraph 25 of the said case which is relevant for the purpose of these cases reads as under :25. From the aforesaid two authorities, it is quite clear that the appointments in respect of Fast Track Courts are ad hoc in nature and no right is to accrue to such recruits promoted/posted on ad hoc basis from the lower judiciary for the regular promotion on the basis of such appointment. It has been categorically stated that FTC Judges were appointed under a separate set of rules than the rules governing the regular appointment in the State Higher Judicial Services16. In the civil appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C)No.28302 of 2018, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants be at least given the benefit of counting the service rendered by them in Fast Track Courts for pensionary and other benefits. In support of his claim, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Mahesh Chandra Verma v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.wherein this Court has considered the very same issue and held that the service rendered as Fast Track Court Judges is to be counted for their length of service, for the purpose of determining their pension and other retiral benefits17. We have perused the aforesaid judgment and we are in agreement with the view taken by a two Judge Bench of this Court.