Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"1. The first preference for appointment of judges of the Fast Track Courts is to be given by ad-hoc promotions from amongst eligible judicial officers. While giving such promotion the High Court shall follow the procedures in force in the matter of promotion to such posts in Superior/Higher Judicial Services.
14. No right will be conferred on Judicial Officers in service for claiming any regular promotion on the basis of his/her appointment on ad-hoc basis under the Scheme. The service rendered in Fast Track Courts will be deemed as service rendered in the parent cadre. In case any Judicial Officer is promoted to higher grade in the parent cadre during his tenure in Fast Track Courts, the service rendered in Fast Track Courts will be deemed to be service in such higher grade."
(ii) The service rendered in Fast Track Courts will be deemed as service rendered in the parent cadre.
(iii) In case any judicial officer is promoted to higher grade in the parent cadre during his tenure in Fast Track Courts, the service rendered in Fast Track Courts will be deemed to be service in such higher grade.
44. The learned Senior Counsel for the writ petitioner heavily relied upon the third part of direction No.14. As a matter of fact, this part has been relied upon in the impugned judgment as well. It is submitted on behalf of the writ Petitioner that on promotion to the Senior Branch cadre of Superior Judicial Service during his tenure in the Fast Track Courts, the writ petitioner is entitled to the counting of the service rendered by him in the Fast Track Court as a service in Superior Judicial Service (Senior Branch). The submission overlooks the first two parts of direction No. 14, one, no right will be conferred in judicial service for claiming any regular promotion on the basis of his/her appointment on ad hoc basis under the scheme; and two, the service rendered in Fast Track Courts will be deemed as service rendered in the parent cadre. In our opinion, until the vacancy occurred in the cadre of Superior Judicial Service (Senior Branch) which was to be filled up by promotion, the service rendered by the writ Petitioner in the Fast Track Court cannot be deemed to be service rendered in the Superior Judicial Service, (Senior Branch). Rather until then, he continued to be a member of the parent cadre i.e., Superior Judicial Service (Junior Branch).

The third part of direction No.14, in our view, does not deserve to be read in a manner that overrides the 1963 Rules.

45. In Brij Mohan Lal (2), inter alia, the controversy centered around the closure of Fast Track Courts Scheme and the appointment of retired district and sessions judges as ad hoc judges of the Fast Track Courts. In one of the writ petitions filed before this Court, the relief was intended to ensure that only the members of the Bar were appointed by direct recruitment to the post of ad hoc district and sessions judges under the Fast Track Courts Scheme. The Court considered the directions given by this Court in Brij Mohan Lal (1). The Court observed in Brij Mohan Lal 2, that this Court had foreseen the possibility of the closure of the Fast Track Courts Scheme. The Court noted the directions given in Brij Mohan Lal (1), inter alia, in the following manner: (SCC p 523, para 7) "7....that the service in FTCs will be deemed as service of the promoted judicial officers rendered in the parent cadre.

44. In pursuance of the decision taken by the Full Court, the RG had recommended appointments of Civil Judges (Sr.Dn.) for promotion to the cadre of District Judges for Fast Track Courts. Accordingly, notifications were issued and Civil Judges (Sr.Dn.) were promoted temporarily on ad hoc basis to officiate as District Judges with immediate effect "to man the Fast Track Courts" subject to reversion at any time. The words "to man the Fast Track Courts" were subsequently removed that in our opinion, would not have any bearing on merits of the case.