V. VENKATA PRASAD & ORS. versus HIGH COURT OF A.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2016] 3 S.C.R. 834 · Decided: 29-06-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[2016] 3 S.C.R. 834 
V. VENKATA PRASAD & ORS. 
v. 
HIGH COURT OF A.P. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.6105 of2013) 
JUNE29,2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.) 
Judiciary -
Seniority~ Claim of. by judicial officers appointed 
as Fast Track Court judges - On facts. appellants appointed as 
District Muns ifs in State Judicial Service and in due course promoted 
as Sub-judges - Later their names recommended for promotion to 
the post of District and Sessions Judge. Grade II - Appellants when 
functioning as sub-judges, Government sanctioned 86 additional 
posts to be established as Fast Track Courts - Initially the High 
Court sanctioned 41 Additional District and Sessions Court and 3 
Additional Senior Ciril Judges Court - Approval of names for 
appointment as District and Sessions Judges, Grade II by transfer 
- Appellants posted as DS.J Gr II against vacancies in Fast Track 
Courts temporarily - Re5pondents appointed as DSJ Gr II by direct 
recruitment - Respondents claiming seniority over the DSJ promoted 
by way of transfer from the cadre of Senior Civil Judge - Final 
seniority list prepared - Seniority of respondents fixed above that 
of the appellants - Seniority list upheld by the High Court - On 
· appeal, held: Appointments in respect of Fast Track Courts are ad 
hoc in nature - No right accrues to such recruits promoted/posted 
on ad hoc basis from the lower judiciary for the regular promotion 
on the basis of such appointment - FTC Judges were appoinJed 
under a separate set of rules than the rules governing the regular 
appointme11t in the State Higher .Judicial Services - Appellants were 
promoted because of the introduction of the Fast frock Court Scheme 
and under the 2001 Rules - They were the beneficiaries of a Scheme 
- While conti11uing in the post under the scheme. the regular posts 
i11 the cadre fell vacant and they were regularised but prior to that; 
the respondents were appointed as direct recruits in respect of 
substantive posts in their quota - Appellants should have been in a 
position to accept the distinction - Andhra Pradesh State Higher 
Judicial Service Special Rules for Adhoc Appointments, 2001. 
834 
'' ,' 
V. VENKATA PRASAD v. HIGH COURT OF A.P. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Conrt 
HELD: 1.1 From * Brij Mo/um/al-I and ** Brij Molumlal-Jl's 
case, it is clear that the appointments in respect of Fast Track 
Courts are ad hoc in nature and no right is to accrue to such 
recruits promoted/posted on ad hoc basis from the lower judiciary 
for the regular promotion on the basis of such appointment. FTC 
Judges were appointed under a separate set of rules than the 
rules governing the regular appointment in the State Higher 
Judicial Services. [Para 19) [849-E] 
1.2 The 2001 Rules are specific rules for ad hoc 
appointments. As the fact situation would exposit, there were six 
vacancies in the regular cadre. Because of introduction of the 
Fast Track Court Scheme, the promotional avenues on ad hoc 
basis became available. The conditions in * Brij Molumlal-l's and 
**Brij Molzanlal-Jl's make it absolutely clear. The submission of 
the appellants is that they were appointed under the 1958 Rules 
as the letter of appointment would show and whole thing would 
depend upon the letter of appointment and not the posting orders 
issued by the High Court; and that if a candidate is appointed on 
ad hoc basis in respect of a vacancy, he would be regarded as 
senior to the direct recruit. Both the submissions, as it is 
perceived, are interwoven but the singular answer to the same 
would be "fundamentally fallacious". [Para 22) [850-F-G; 851-B-
C] 
1.3 The principle stated in ***0.P. Sil1gla's case that no 
distinction can be made between direct recruits on one hand and 
promotees appointed to the Service on the other, in the matter 
of their placement in the seniority list does not assist the counsel 
for the appellants. It is simply so because the appellants were 
not appointed to substantive vacancies. That has also been clearly 
stated in the majority opinion in O.P. Singla's case which has been 
placed reliance upon by the three-Judge Bench in ****Debabrata 
Dash 's case. The appellants who are aspirant to structure the 
case solely on the basis of the words used in the letter of 
appointment ignoring the letter of posting, they are bound to 
remain in the realm of unnecessary undiminished hope. Their 
promotion came because of the. introduction of the Fast Track 
Court S

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