THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
AND
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.No.21365 of 2020
ORDER: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)
The petitioner before this court has filed the present petition
stating that an Advertisement was issued on 13.08.2002 notifying
24 posts of Additional District and Sessions Judges to preside over
the Fast Track Courts on ad hoc basis. She applied for the post
and she was selected. An order was issued on 06.10.2003
appointing the petitioner as a Fast Track Court Judge under the
A.P. State Higher Judicial Services Special for Adhoc Appointment
Rules, 2001. The petitioner's contention is that the
respondent/High Court, while complying with the judgment
delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Brij Mohan Lal vs. Union of India and others1, has considered the case of the petitioner for regularisation as a regular District Judge on the Telangana State Judicial Services. However, she has not been regularised, as she was not able to secure 35% marks prescribed as cut off marks for the purpose of regularisation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this court that no marks were given to the petitioner for the years of service rendered by her and the petitioner has rendered about 15 years of service as a Fast Track Judge and therefore, she was entitled for 15 marks under the viva voce head. Other grounds have also been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the disposal of the petitioner was very high, she has worked as an excellent Judicial Officer, she belongs to woman 1 (2012) 6 SCC 502 2 category and therefore, she is entitled to be regularised. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan Lal vs. Union of India and others2 and the case of Brij Mohan Lal (1 supra). Heavy reliance has been placed upon paragraphs 7 and 10 of the judgment in the case of Brij Mohan Lal (2 supra) and the contention of the learned counsel is that keeping in view the periodical review done by the High Court based upon the performance, appropriate order of regularisation should have been passed.
This court has carefully gone through both the judgments and paragraph 207.9 of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan Lal (1 supra) reads as under:-
"207.9. 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:
(a) The direct recruits to FTCs who opt for regularization shall take a written examination to be conducted by the High Courts of the respective States for determining their suitability for absorption in the regular cadre of Additional District Judges.
(b) Thereafter, they shall be subjected to an interview by a Selection Committee consisting of the Chief Justice and four seniormost Judges of that High Court.
(c) There shall be 150 marks for the written examination and 100 marks for the interview. The qualifying marks shall be 40% aggregate for general candidates and 35% for SC/ST/OBC candidates. The examination and interview shall be held in accordance with the relevant Rules enacted by the States for direct appointment to Higher Judicial Services.2
(2002) 5 SCC 1 3
(d) 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.
(e) Needless to point out that this examination and interview should be conducted 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 country by administering justice in accordance with law. The written examination and interview module, should, thus, be framed keeping in mind the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases.
(f) The candidates who qualify the written examination and obtain consolidated percentage as aforeindicated shall be appointed to the post of Additional District Judge in the regular cadre of the State.
(g) If, for any reason, vacancies are not available in the regular cadre, we hereby direct the State Governments to create such additional vacancies as may be necessary keeping in view the number of candidates selected.
(h) All sitting and/or former FTC Judges who were directly appointed from the Bar and are desirous of taking the examination and interview for regular appointment shall be given age relaxation. No application shall be rejected on the ground of age of the applicant being in excess of the prescribed age."
A detailed procedure was prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the purpose of regularising the ad hoc judges. The petitioner is a OBC candidate and as per the procedure prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, a written examination of 150 marks was to take place. For viva voce, 100 marks were assigned and for every years of service, one mark was to be assigned to a candidate. The petitioner, being a backward candidate, was required to secure 35% or above. However, she has secured only 42 marks out of 150 marks in the written examination and in viva voce, she has secured 32.40 out of 100, totalling to 74.40 out of 250 marks, meaning thereby less than 35%.
This court has summoned the original record and it is very clear that the petitioner was assigned 15 marks by each of the 4 Hon'ble Judges for 15 years of ad hoc service and therefore, the statement made in the writ petition that she was not assigned 15 marks is incorrect. Even after assigning 15 marks by each and every Judge, who was a Member of the interview board, the petitioner has secured only 32.40 marks inclusive of 15 marks for the years of service rendered. Therefore, as the petitioner was not able to achieve the cut off percentage prescribed for regularisation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, she has not been regularised. This court cannot override the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of absorption of Fast Track Court Judges and as the petitioner was not able to achieve the benchmark as held by the Supreme Court, she has not been regularised and this court does not find any reason to grant any relief to the petitioner.
Admission is declined and the writ petition is dismissed. The miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ ___________________________ P.MADHAVI DEVI, J 02.11.2021 JSU