The Gauhati High Court Through The ... vs Goto Ete

2. Pursuant to the advertisement dated July 13, 2001 issued by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh, respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘writ petitioners’) were appointed as Additional Deputy Commissioners with the powers of Additional Sessions Judge, on contract basis, with the stipulation that their period of contract is up to March 31, 2005. They were to man the Digitally signed by NIDHI AHUJA Date: 2018.04.23 Fast Track Courts (for short, ‘FTCs’). This contract period was 17:25:47 IST Reason: extended for a further period of five years, i.e. up to March 31, Civil Appeal No. 4298 of 2018 Page 1 of 37 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 23780 of 2016) 2010. These respondents put their claims for regularisation to the said posts and to be allowed to work as Additional Sessions Judges, invoking the provisions of Rule 7 of the Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2006. There has been a protracted litigation in this behalf, as would be noticed hereinafter at the relevant stage. At this juncture, while narrating the background in which the matter has landed in this Court, we may only mention that request for appointment on regular basis was rejected by the High Court (the appellant herein) and services of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 were dispensed with on January 07, 2013. This termination was challenged by the writ petitioners by filing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 776 of 2013. The proceedings of this writ petition have culminated in the judgment dated January 19, 2016 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Vide this judgment the writ petition has been allowed, thereby quashing the order of dispensing the ad hoc services of the writ petitioners with further direction that the State/respondent No.4 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Government’) should start consultation process for absorption of the writ petitioners in Grade-I of the Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service with effect from January 07, 2013 and directed the appellant, i.e. the Gauhati High Court (hereinafter referred to as the ‘High Court’) to consider the cases Civil Appeal No. 4298 of 2018 Page 2 of 37 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 23780 of 2016) of the writ petitioners for absorption in the light of the observations made in the said judgment. The High Court feels aggrieved by these directions and that is the reason for challenging the judgment dated January 19, 2016. Notice in this Special Leave Petition was issued on August 08, 2016 and simultaneously this Court had granted the stay of the impugned judgment. The result is that the writ petitioners have not been taken back into service.

With this background, we now state the factual matrix in some detail.

3. An advertisement was issued on July 13, 2001 by the Government of Arunachal Pradesh inviting applications for filling up of three posts of Additional Deputy Commissioners with the powers of Additional Sessions Judge, on contract basis, for the period up to March 31, 2005. Pursuant thereto, on June 04, 2002, the writ petitioners were selected for the aforesaid posts by the High Court. The State Government issued appointment orders in their favour for the aforesaid post, on contract basis, up to March 31, 2005. This term was subsequently extended for another five years, i.e. up to March 31, 2010. The purpose was to post the incumbents in Fast Track Courts.

4. It is relevant to point out that at that time there was no segregation of executive branch from the judicial wing in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. This was, however, accomplished by promulgating the Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2006 Rules’), which were notified on December 06, 2006. Rule 7 of the 2006 Rules relate to the method of recruitment and the relevant portion thereof is couched in the following manner:

5. On December 13, 2007, a representation was made by respondent Nos. 1 and 2, inter alia, for being absorbed in the regular service in terms of Rule 7 of the 2006 Rules. While this representation was pending, the State Government issued the Civil Appeal No. 4298 of 2018 Page 4 of 37 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 23780 of 2016) Notification dated December 17, 2007 establishing two Courts of the District and Sessions Judges. Thereafter, on February 25, 2008, the State Government made a proposal to the High Court, under proviso to Rule 7, for consideration of absorption of the writ petitioners as FTC judges against the two newly created posts of District & Sessions Judge, Grade-I. On March 28, 2008, the Registrar General of the High Court put up a note to the Committee comprising three High Court Judges for consideration of the proposal of the State Government. The Committee, after consideration of the entire material, rejected the proposal for absorption on May 09, 2008. Respondent No.1 made another representation dated June 12, 2008 for reconsideration of his absorption in the regular service, as a special case, in terms of Rule 7 of the 2006 Rules. This representation also came to be rejected by the Committee on June 25, 2008 by reiterating its earlier resolution dated May 09, 2008.

6. Thereafter, on July 31, 2008, the High Court issued another advertisement for filling up of two posts of District and Sessions Judge, Grade-I, that were created vide Notification dated December 17, 2007. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 appeared in the examination but could not qualify in the selection process. Respondent No.1, though applied, did not appear in the Civil Appeal No. 4298 of 2018 Page 5 of 37 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 23780 of 2016) examination. Instead, vide Notification dated March 30, 2010, two other candidates were selected and appointed to the notified posts.

7. Respondent No.1 approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 401 of 2008 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, seeking absorption in terms of the proviso to Rule 7 of the 2006 Rules. On September 15, 2008, this Court issued notice in the said writ petition. After completion of pleadings, the matter was directed to be listed for final hearing. At that stage, on March 24, 2011, the Registrar General of the High Court filed an additional affidavit, inter alia, stating that the cases for absorption of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were considered twice (on May 09, 2008 and June 25, 2008 respectively) under the aforesaid proviso to Rule 7, and a decision was taken not to absorb them. Despite this, the State Government has, on April 07, 2011, recommended the names of the writ petitioners for appointment to the High Court. Be that as it may, on May 09, 2011, this Court dismissed the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 401 of 2008, as withdrawn. No liberty was sought for and/or granted to agitate the same issue by filing a fresh writ petition in the High Court.

8. When the things rested at that, the State Government approved extension of term of the FTC judges in the State for a period of five years with effect from April 01, 2011 to March 31, 2015, vide orders dated May 19, 2011. Few months thereafter, i.e. on November 03, 2011, the Governor of the State of Arunachal Pradesh, in consultation with the High Court, converted the three FTCs into Regular Courts of Additional District and Sessions Judges, Grade-I.

Civil Appeal No. 4298 of 2018 Page 36 of 37 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 23780 of 2016)

32. As a result, this appeal succeeds and is allowed thereby setting aside the impugned judgment.

No costs.

APRIL 23, 2018.

Civil Appeal No. 4298 of 2018 Page 37 of 37 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 23780 of 2016)