DEBABRATA DASH AND ANR. versus JATINDRA PRASAD DAS & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 2 S.C.R. 331 · Decided: 11-03-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RAJENDRA MAL LODHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 2 S.C.R. 331 
DEBABRATA DASH AND ANR. 
v. 
JATINDRA PRASAD DAS & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2316 of 2013) 
MARCH 11, 2013 
[R.M. LODHA, J. CHELAMESWAR AND 
MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] 
Orissa Judicial Service (Special Schemes) Rules 2001: 
rr. 3, 4, 5 and 7 - Member of Orissa Superior Judicial 
Service (Junior Branch) - Ad hoc promotion as Additional 
District Judge in Fast Track Court created in terms of 11th 
Finance Commission recommendations - Claim that such 
A 
B 
c 
ad hoc service be treated for the purpose of seniority in Orissa 
D 
Superior Judicial Service (Sr. Branch) - Held: Not tenable -
In the absence of any vacancy in the Senior Branch cadre of 
Superior Judicial Service to be filled up by promotion, no 
appointment to the Senior Branch of service by way of 
promotion can be made - On the date of appointment of the 
E 
officer to ad hoc post of Addi. District Judge in Fast Track 
Court or on the date he joined the said post, there was no 
cadre post available - Promotion of the officer as an ad hoc 
Addi. District Judge pursuant to which he joined the post is 
traceable wholly and squarely to 2001 Rules and not to 1963 
Rules - Officer has been rightly given benefit from the date 
F 
the vacancy occurred in the Senior Branch cadre - Orissa 
Superior Judicial Service Rules 1963. 
The instant appeal was filed by two officers of the 
Orissa Superior Judicial Service (Senior Branch) directly G 
appointed from the bar, challenging the judgment of the 
High Court whereby it allowed the writ petition of 
respondent no. 1 (writ petitioner), and directed the High 
Court on administrative side to treat the period of service 
331 
H 
332 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2013] 2 S.C.R. 
A rendered by the writ petitioner as ad hoc Additional 
District Judge (Fast ·rack Court) for the purpose of 
seniority from the date of his joining the said post. The 
question for consideration before the Court was: 
"whether promotion of the writ petitioner as an ad hoc 
B Additional District Judge vide Notification dated 5.1.2002 
to the Senior Branch of the Superior Judicial Service for 
being posted in the Fast Track Court established out of 
11th Finance Commission recommendations can be said 
to be an appointment in the Senior Branch cadre of 
c Superior Judicial Service." 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. It is not in dispute that immediately before 
writ petitioner's ad hoc promotion to the Senior Branch 
D of Superior Judicial Service for being posted in the Fast 
Track Court, he was a member of the Junior Branch of 
the Superior Judicial Service. There is also no dispute 
that there was no cadre post available on 05.01.2002 (on 
the date of ad hoc promotion for the writ petitioner) or 
E 26.04.2002 (the date of joining the post) under the Orissa 
Superior Judicial Service Rules 1963. In the absence of 
any vacancy in the Senior Branch cadre of Superior 
Judicial Service to be filled up by promotion, no 
appointment to the Senior Branch of service by way of 
F promotion can be made. [para 32-33] [346-G-H; 348-D] 
1.2. It is to be noted that 72 posts of ad hoc 
Additional District Judges (Fast Track Court) were 
created 
out 
of 
11th 
Finance 
Commission 
recommendations and these posts were to be filled up 
G under the Orissa Judicial Service (Special Schemes) 
Rules 2001. These Rules were made to regulate the . 
recruitment of Judicial Officers in the State of Orissa on 
ad hoc and purely temporary basis exclusively for 
implementation of the recommendations of 11th Finance 
H Commission for upgradation of Judicial Administration 
DEBABRATA DASH AND ANR. v. JATINDRA 
333 
PRASAD DAS 
under upgradation for elimination of old pending cases. A 
Rules 3 and 4 make it clear that the appointment made 
under 2001 Rules is purely on ad hoc and temporary 
basis for implementation of the Scheme. Rule 7 makes 
the provision that inservice Judicial Officer shall not claim 
regular promotion in the regular cadre on the basis of B 
appointment made under this scheme. [para 32 and 35] 
[346-H; 347-A; 348-G-H; 349-A, B, E] 
1.3. The writ petitioner's promotion as an ad hoc 
Additional District Judge by Notification dated 05.01.2002 C 
pursuant to which he joined the post of ad hoc Additional 
· District Judge on 26.04.2002 is traceable wholly and 
squarely to the 2001 Rules and not to be the 1963 Rules. 
The simple reason leading to this consequence is that 
there was no vacancy available which was to be filled up 
by promotion on that

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