BRIJ MOHAN LAL versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2012] 5 S.C.R. 305 · Decided: 19-04-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 13 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2012] 5 S.C.R. 305 
BRIJ MOHAN LAL 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
(Transfer Case No. 23 of 2001) 
APRIL 19, 2012 
[A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] 
Judiciary: 
A 
B 
Fast Track Court Scheme - Appointment to the posts of c 
FTC judges under the Scheme as ad hoc judges - Vacancies 
in the regular judicial cadre of States - Absorption and 
regularisation against such post - Entitlement to - Held: On 
analysis of the Rules relating to the different States, the 
appointment letters issued and methodology adopted for 0 
appointment of the FTC judges, appointees cannot have any 
legal, much less an indefeasible right to the posts - Financing 
of the FTC Scheme has already been stopped by Central 
Government with effect from 31st March, 2011 - Relevant 
Rules of the States, and the Notifications state that appointees 
E 
have been appointed not only on ad hoc and temporary basis 
but the entire FTC Scheme itself was ad hoc and for a 
duration of five years only - No permanent post was created 
- Thus, appointees do not have any absolute right to the post 
- Service Law - Constitution of India, 1950 - Articles 233 and 
235. 
F 
FTC Scheme by the Central Government - Financed for 
limited period - Some States continuing with the Scheme 
while others forced to discontinue it because of non-
availability of funds - Scope of judicial review - Held: It is the 
G 
constitutional duty of the Government to provide the citizens 
of the country with such judicial infrastructure and means of 
access to justice so that every person is able to receive an 
expeditious, inexpensive and fair trial - Financial limitations 
305 
H 
306 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 5 S.C.R. 
A or constraints cannot be justified as a valid excuse - Policy 
of State has to be in larger public interest and free of 
arbitrariness - Adhocism and uncertainty adversely affect any 
State policy and its results - Though the Central Government 
took a decision to stop financing and consequently to wind 
B up the FTC Scheme however, at the same time it allocated 
substantial funds for starting morning, evening and shift 
courts - Thus, not appropriate to decide upon a comparative 
analysis of the policy decisions but whichever policy is taken 
up has to be fair in public interest - Constitution of India, 1950 
c - Article 21 and 39 - Administrative law - Policy decision. 
Administration of justice in States - Decision/ 
recommendations of the conference of the Chief Ministers of 
the States and Chief Justices of the High Courts -
Implementation of - Held: Decision/recommendations of the 
D Conference should form the basis of the policy decisions by 
the State or the Central Government relating to the 
administration of justice - Due weightage should be attached 
to these recommendations - On facts, decision taken by the 
Government, Union of India who participated in the 
E Conference to extend FTC Scheme for the period of 5 years 
beyond 31st March 2010 i.e. till 31st March 2015 as a/so 
other measures taken to tackle the problem of arrear of cases 
- However, decision of the Conference not implemented and 
the decision contrary to the minutes taken and placed before 
F the Supreme Court that the FTC Scheme would not be 
financed by the Central Government beyond 31st March, 2011 
- Thus, the Central Government not justified in brushing aside 
the minutes and recommendations of such a high level 
meeting in a most casual manner. 
G 
H 
Fast Track Courts (FTC) Scheme by Central Government 
- Implementation of, by various States - Ad hoc appointment 
of District and Session Judges in FTCs made by different 
States in different manner - Subsequently Central 
Government agreeing to finance the FTC Scheme uptil 30th 
BRIJ MOHAN LAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
307 
March, 2011 - Challenge to the decision of, various State 
A 
Governments and praying for continuation of scheme and 
absorption in regular cadre - Held: As regards State of 
Gujarat, appointment of persons as Judicial Officers to preside 
over the FTCs by way of direct recruitment from the Bar were 
made purely on ad hoc basis and urgent temporary basis for 
8 
a pen'od of 2 years terminable without notice, thus, cannot vest 
or confer any right upon the appointees to be absorbed in the 
permanent cadre - These appointments were to come to an 
end by lapse of time - In case of State of Orissa prayer for 
quashing of the caution letter issued to some officers to 
C 
dispose of eight Session Trials every month, m

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.