KUM C. YAMINI versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 595 · Decided: 14-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
595
KUM C. YAMINI
v.
THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 6296 of 2019)
AUGUST 14, 2019
[S. A. BOBDE, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Judiciary: Fast Track Court – Ad hoc District Judges –
Selection to the post of District Judges in regular cadre from adhoc
Fast Track Court District Judges – Claim for seniority based on
adhoc appointment – Appellant was appointed to a Fast Track Court
(FTC) as an ad hoc District Judge in 2003 – On 28.5.2004, the
second respondent-High Court issued notification inviting
applications for regular appointments to the posts of District Judge
in the Higher Judicial Service  –  A set of ad hoc District Judges
appointed to the FTCs filed writ petition questioning the notification
and praying for absorption against regular vacancies – High Court
dismissed the writ petition – On appeal, the Supreme Court while
declining to grant relief of absorption directed that the direct recruits
to FTCs who opted for regularization shall be subjected to written
examination and interview for being entitled to be appointed to the
regular cadre of the Higher Judicial Services of the respective States
– In compliance of these directions, the second respondent-High
Court issued notification inviting applications, to fill up the posts
of District Judges in regular cadre from the working/former ad hoc
FTC District Judges  –  Appellants responded to the said notification
and was selected and appointed by G.O. MS No. 68 dated 2.7.2013
–  Appellant availed the benefit of such appointment and completed
probation of two years – Nearby four years of her appointment,
she filed writ petition questioning G.O. MS No. 68 dated 2.7.2013
and  claiming seniority from date of her initial appointment as adhoc
District Judge – High Court rejected her claim – Hence instant
appeal – Held: The appointments which came to be made for
selecting District Judges for FTCs sanctioned under the 11th Finance
Scheme are totally different and distinct, compared to appointments
which are to be made for regular vacant posts of District Judges –
Merely on the ground that they were selected by following the same
   [2019] 10 S.C.R. 595
595
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
596
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
procedure akin to that of regular selections, is no ground to consider
their claim for grant of seniority from the date of initial appointment
– When their claim for regularisation/absorption and challenge to
notification issued in the year 2004 for making selections to the
vacant regular posts of District Judges was rejected, the appellants
have no basis to claim seniority from the date of initial appointment
–  In any event, having applied in response to the notification issued
by the High Court in 2013 after availing the benefit of appointment,
it is not open to the appellants to question the conditions imposed
in the order which is in conformity with rules –  Undisputedly,
appellant was appointed as ad hoc District Judges to preside over
the FTCs only – Initially when she was not appointed to a post or
category of posts, forming part of cadre strength in such category,
appellant cannot claim any seniority over the persons regularly
appointed in the category of posts forming part of cadre strength –
Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service Special Rules for Ad
Hoc Appointments, 2001 – rr.1, 2, 7 – Estoppel.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD : 1. When the Fast Track Courts were established
in the State of Andhra Pradesh out of the grants made available
by the 11th Finance Commission, for making appointments to
preside over such courts, a separate set of rules, namely, Andhra
Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service Special Rules for Ad Hoc
Appointments, 2001 were issued.  The appellant was initially
appointed as per the said Rules.  Rule 1 of the said Rules dealt
with the constitution of service and Rule 7 laid down the terms
and conditions of the appointment.  Rule 7(1)(B) states that a
person appointed under Rule 2(i) shall not be regarded as a
member of permanent cadre covered under Rule 2 of Special
Rules and is not entitled to any preferential right to any other
appointment.  The said Rules are framed only for the purpose of
selecting District Judges on ad hoc posts for presiding over Fast
Track Courts.  The Fast Track Courts were established initially
for a limited period of five years.  All these selections which were
made on ad hoc basis, are not for any posts in the regular cadre of
A.P. Higher Ju

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