Telangana High Court

Dr. T. Padma vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 28 December, 2023

  THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE

                                 AND

 THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI

            WRIT PETITION No.24441 OF 2010


ORDER:

(per the Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti)

The petitioner approached this Court seeking the

following relief:

"to issue Writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ order or direction declaring the action of the respondents in not extending the services of the petitioner as Adhoc District Judge to preside over Fast Track Court by the impugned order Roc.No.1971 / E1/ 2006 dated 4.5.2010 without considering the representation of the petitioner dt:3.6.2010 and 23.7.2010 as illegal arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of constitution of India and for a consequential order to quash the impugned order Roc.No.1971/E1/2006 dated 4.5.2010 by directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner forthwith with continuity of service and all consequential benefits viz., payment of arrears of salary and other benefits and to pass such order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper."

2. K. Hima Bindu, learned counsel for the petitioner and

Mr. Y. Sai Sankalp, counsel appeared on behalf of Mr. Y.

Rama Rao, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2 CJ & JAK, J

3. Brief facts:

Petitioner was enrolled as an Advocate in the year

1993 and after having practised for some time, she was

appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor in June, 1998.

Pursuant to notification issued by respondent No.1 dated

12.08.2002, petitioner made an application for post(s) of

Adhoc Judges for Fast Track Courts and she was placed at

Sl.No.8 and appointed as District Judge on Adhoc basis

vide G.O.Rt.No.1798, dated 06.10.2003 and a

communication of provisional selection was issued on

14.10.2023. Petitioner underwent training and was posted

as II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track

Court, Medak at Sangareddy), vide Notification

No.1058/B.Spl., dated 22.10.2003. As per terms and

conditions, petitioner executed agreement dated 23.10.2003

for a period of two (02) years till 31.03.2005 for the tenure

of appointment on contract basis.

3.1. Respondent No.1 vide Roc.No.4335/E1/2000, dated

02.05.2005, extended the tenure of the Fast Track Courts 3 CJ & JAK, J

beyond 30.04.2005 until further orders. Respondent No.1

vide G.O.Rt.No.430, dated 27.03.2006, extended the tenure

of the Fast Track Courts Judges for a period of five (05)

years from 01.04.2005 to 31.03.2010.

3.2. A letter was addressed to the petitioner dated

01.12.2006 directing not to dispose of any cases on the file

of II Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track

Court), Medak, Sangareddy, until further orders.

Petitioner's services were terminated vide G.O.Ms.No.180,

dated 29.12.2006.

3.3. Petitioner preferred writ petition challenging orders of

termination vide W.P.No.1554 of 2007. This Court by order

dated 22.08.2008 was pleased to quash the impugned

termination order dated 29.12.2006 with a direction that

the petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits

such as reinstatement into service with resultant benefits

such as salary and emoluments including arrears with

effect from 29.12.2006, (i.e., from the date of the order of

termination till date of reinstatement).

4 CJ & JAK, J

3.4. Pursuant to the decision of this Court, petitioner was

reinstated on 02.07.2009 with continuity of service and

back wages by respondent No.2 vide order dated

23.06.2009. Term of 108 Fast Track Courts came to an end

by 31.03.2010.

3.5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the

petitioner that petitioner was issued the impugned order by

respondent No.2 in ROC.No.1971/E1/2006, dated

04.05.2010, wherein it was stated that the High Court had

decided not to extend the tenure of appointment as Adhoc

District Judge, beyond 01.04.2010 and was directed to

hand over charge immediately to the I Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Nizamabad and get herself relieved.

3.6. It is pertinent to take note of the fact that petitioner

while discharging her duties as II Additional District and

Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Medak at Sangareddy in

sessions case i.e., S.C.No.376 of 1996 delivered the

judgment convicting 15 accused to undergo rigorous

imprisonment for life. An appeal Crl.A.No.977 of 2005 5 CJ & JAK, J

preferred against the said judgment, was allowed by a

Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court by setting aside the

judgment.

3.7 It is trite to take note of the fact that one of the

Hon'ble Judges of the Division Bench observed in the order

as follows:

"Learned Judge convicted 15 accused and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment without evaluating the prosecution evidence, after recording contentions, in one para of 7 or 8 lines. It is not safe to assign Sessions cases, unless her performance with other cases is evaluated."

3.8. Registry placed the matter before the Hon'ble Chief

Justice and the same was directed to be placed before the

Fast Track Court Committee. The said committee observed

that the judgments delivered by the petitioner in

S.C.Nos.376/1996, 164/2000, 383/2002, 223/2003,

232/2003 and S.C.No.366/2004 were found most

unsatisfactory. A resolution was passed terminating the

services of the petitioner in the meeting held on

20.11.2006, resolution is as follows:

6 CJ & JAK, J

"Hence, it is resolved that the services of Smt. T. Padma, II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Medak at Sangareddy, be terminated."

3.9. It is submitted that petitioner filed W.P.No.1554 of

2007 challenging the termination of her services as Adhoc

District Judge vide G.O.Ms.No.180, dated 29.12.2006. By

order dated 22.08.2008, a Division Bench of this Court

directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into

service with all consequential benefits.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner

performed her duties most diligently and only in one case

she passed such orders and the Administrative Committee

had taken a decision not to extend her services. That the

Division Bench reinstated the petitioner into services is

ample proof that she has been discharging her duties

diligently and that her services should have been extended

with consequential benefits. Hence, appropriate relief be

granted.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent supported

the order of non-extension of services of the petitioner as 7 CJ & JAK, J

the petitioner's entire record was considered by committee

of Fast Track Judges and it was resolved not to extend her

services. It is also submitted that subsequently a

notification was issued for the recruitment of Fast Track

Court Judges on Adhoc basis. The petitioner made an

application pursuant to the said notification and she was

unsuccessful (in the year 2010).

6. Heard learned counsels, perused the entire record,

the order and counter affidavit filed.

7. Considered the rival submissions, the High Court

decided not to extend the tenure of appointment of the

petitioner by order dated 04.05.2010. Discontinuation and

relieving of the writ petitioner does not amount to

dismissal, removal or termination. Petitioner was on

contract basis and was discontinued and relieved without

any stigma. Term of 108 Fast Track Courts came to an end

by 31.03.2010. An office note was placed regarding

extension of term of petitioner beyond 31.03.2010, i.e., from

01.04.2010 to 30.06.2010. When the Registry placed the 8 CJ & JAK, J

matter before the Hon'ble Judges of Administrative

Committee for extension of term the committee in its

meeting held on 19.04.2010 resolved not to extend the

tenure of petitioner. It is also a fact that the Administrative

Committee of the Hon'ble Judges decided not to consider

her representations dated 03.06.2010 and 23.07.2010 for

continuation of her services as Adhoc District and Sessions

Judge. We do not find any grounds for interference in the

order of non-extension and the writ petition is liable to be

dismissed.