[2008] 9 S. C.R. 1126
MADHUMITA DAS AND ORS.
...
.
A
..
V.
STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.
(Writ Petition (C) No. 254 of 2008)
B
June 11, 2008
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ]
)"
JUDICIARY:
'."""
Higher Judicial Service - Direct recruitment of Additional
-
c District Judges -Advertisement No. 1 of 2008 issued by Orissa
High Court for 16 posts - Writ Petitions before Supreme Court
by 9 ad-hoc Additional District Judges appointed to funcgon
•
I
as Fast Track Courts* - HELD: Process of selection pursuant
to the advertisement may continue, but that shall on/~.~ be in
D respect of 7 posts and not in respect of 9 posts held by the
petitioners - Petitioners shall continue to hold the posts until
further orders of the High Court - It is made clear that as and
when regular vacancies arise, cases of petitioners shall be
duly considered - There shall not be any need for them to
E
appear in any examination meant for recruitment to the cadre
of District Judge.
*Brij Mohan Lal Vs. Union of India and Ors. (2002 (5)
J..
sec 1 - referred to.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (CIVIL) No.
""
F
,_.
250 of 2008
Under Article 32 of the constitution of India
WITH
.G
W.P. (C) No. 254 of 2008
Uday U. La lit, Rachana Srivastava for the Petitioners.
'
~
The following Order of the Court was delivered
..,,
H
1126
_ ..
MADHUMITA DAS A& ORS. v. STATE OF
ORISSA & ORS.
Issue notice.
1127
Challenge in these writ petitions is to the Advertisement
No.1 of 2008 issued by the Orissa High Court. The petitioners
have been selected to function as ad-hoc Additional District
Judges in terms of the
judgment of this Court in Brij Mohan Lal Vs. Union of In-
A
B
dia and Ors. (2002 (5) SCC 1 ). It is their grievance that 16
posts advertised also include the 9 posts presently held by the
petitioners in the two writ petitions. It is pointed out that the
eligibility criterion fixed in the advertisement rules out the c
present petitioners. Firstly, some of them are above the maxi-
mum age of 45 years and secondly, being Judicial Officers,
they cannot apply for posts advertised for members of the
Bar. It is also pointed out that in terms of what has been stated
by this Court in Brij Mohan's case (supra), at paragraph-10,
D
direction No.4, they are to be continued (in the ad-hoc posts)
belonging to Fast Track Courts, and, thereafter, in respect of
regular posts available, after the Fast Track Courts cease to
function. Their cases are to be considered subject to their per-
formance being found satisfactory. Their stand is that they have
been continued from time to time. Obviously, their performance
E
was found to qe satisfactory. Presently, we are not concerned
with that question which may have relevance only at the time of
considering their absorption in respect of the regular vacan-
cies. It is submitted by Mr. Uday U. Lalit, learned senior coun-
sel that while assessing the performance, there cannot be dif-
F
ferent yardsticks, i.e. same parameters have to be adopted
while judging the performance of the petitioners viz-a-viz. those
which are recruited from another source, i.e. from amongst
the Judicial Officers. We find substance in this plea also. There-
fore, we direct that the process of selection pursuant to the Ad-
G
vertisement No.1 of 2008 may continue but that shall only be in
respect of 7 posts, and not in respect of 9 posts presently held
by the petitioners. It is pointed out that the High Court, after the
advertisement has been issuec:L has issued certain letters re-
garding the non-disposal of adequate number of cases. The
H
1128
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2008] 9 S.C.R.
~
A petitioners have given reasons as to why there could not be
#
adequate disposal of the cases. Needless to say, the High Court
shall consider the stand taken in the responses while judging
their suitability for appointment on regular basis. The petition-
ers shall continue to hold the posts until further orders, for which
B necessary orders shall be passed by the High Court. It is made
clear that as and when regular vacancies arise, cases of the
'!'
'<''
petitioners shall be duly considered. There shall not be any need
for them to appear in any examination meant for recruitment to
the cadre of District Judge.
List these matters in the first week of September, 2008.
In the meantime, counter and rejoinder affidavits, if any,
shall be filed.
R.P.
..
......
Lex