LexMAHESH CHANDRA VERMA & ORS. versus STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2012] 9 S.C.R. 6 MAHESH CHANDRA VERMA & ORS. V. STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 6647 of 2012 ETC.) SEPTEMBER 19, 2012 [AFTAB ALAM AND RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, JJ.] JUDICIARY: c FAST TRACK COURTS (FTC) - Appointments of ADJ, FTC - Advertisement issued for direct recruitment from the Bar to regular cadre in Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service - 17 vacancies being available, appointments given to candidates at SI. No.. 1 to 17 in the select list - Thereafter 0 candidates from SI. No. 18 to 27 in the select list appointed ADJ, FTC - Subsequently, 15 more candidates appointed as ADJ, FTC - Appointment of latter 25 candidates as ADJ, FTC challenged by Sub-Judges - Held: With the appointment of 17 candidates, the select list came to an end and with it the selection process for appointment of regular ADJs came to E an end - When the advertisement for regular posts of ADJs in Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service was issued, the posts for FTCs were not sanctioned nor were they even in contemplation - Therefore, the advertisement was not and could not have been for FTC Judges - The unexhausted list F was wrongly used for appointment of 10 FTC Judges - Further, out of list of unsuccessful candidates, 15 persons were appointed as FTC Judges - The whole procedure was irregular - Nevertheless, High Court's decision, however improper, cannot, in any way, be said to be vitiated by ma/a G tides. - In the circumstances, the appointments made on 021 0212002 and 1210812002 are held as irregular, made in ignorance of settled principles underlying service law, in an anxiety to comply with the desire expressed by the Law H 6 MAHESH CHANDRA VERMA & ORS. v. STATE OF 7 JHARKHAND Ministry and to set up FTCs to deal with the problem of A pendency of cases - Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001 - Locus Standi.. FAST TRACK COURTS (FTC) - Appointment of FTC B Judges - Held: The FTC posts were temporary, ad hoc and ex-cadre posts and appointees to such posts cannot be said to have any legal right to the posts - The Rules of 2001 meant for Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service do not apply to ad hoc ADJs appointed under a scheme of temporary duration like Fast Tract Court Scheme - The appellants were appointed to C ex-cadre posts for a temporary period - Merely because they were made to take written examination and viva voce their appointments cannot be termed as substantive appointments nor can the nature of work done by them make their appointments substantive. D FAST TRACK COURTS (FTC) - FTC Judges - Regularisation - Held: The case of the appellants FTC Judges in the instant matter is covered by the decision in Brij Mohan Lal-I/ - State Government and High Court will comply with the E directions issued in Brij Mohan Lal-If to appoint the appellants in the regular cadre in the Higher Judicial Service in the State strictly in the manner laid down in Brij Mohan-I/ - Constitution of India, 1950 - Art. 142. The High Court of Jharkhand issued an advertisement dated 23.5.2001 inviting applications to fill F up the vacancies of regular Additional District Judges (ADJs) by direct recruitment from Bar in terms of the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001. On G completion of the selection process, 17 candidates were appointed as ADJs in the regular cadre of Higher Judicial Service. Subsequently, 10 candidates from Sr.No.18 to 27 of the merit list were appointed as ADJ, Fast Track Court (FTC) by Notification dated 2.2.2002; and 15 more H 8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2012] 9 S.C.R. A candidates were appointed as ADJ, FTC by Notification dated 12.8.2002. Respondent Nos.5 to 35, who belonged to the category of Sub Judge in the Judicial Service in Subordinate Judiciary of the State, filed a writ petition before the Hig:1 Court contending that the appointment B of the latter 25 ADJs, FTC was illegal and it affected their promotional avenues. The affidavit filed on behalf of the High Court stated that at the time of advertisement (i.e. 23.05.2001) the States of Bihar and Jharkhand were newly bifurcated and cadre strength was not finalized. C The High Court was waiting for more officers to be allocated to Jharkhand cadre. New Posts were also under the process of creation and, therefore, in the advertisement exact number of vacancies
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.