Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(a) Candidates selected/appointed as ADJs from the Fast Track Courts:
12. We now deal with the second issue relating to ineligibility of the candidates i.e. Presiding Officers of Fast Track Courts.

Appointment/absorption of the Presiding Officers of the Fast Track Courts in the State of Haryana against the quota of direct recruits in the Haryana Superior Judicial Service is other issue which has fallen for our consideration. It may be useful to briefly trace out the source of the Fast Track Courts.

XXX XXX XXX
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.

14. The High Court of Punjab and Haryana issued notification dated 26.5.2003 inviting applications from the members of the Bar for appointment as Presiding Officers in the Fast Track Courts in Punjab and Haryana. Members of the Bar with ten years of practice as an advocate as on 1.1.2003 and between the age limit of 35 years and 50 years as on the said date were eligible to apply. Initial period of appointment was one year extendable by the High Court from time to time. By virtue of Clause IV of the notification, Haryana District Additional and Sessions Judge (Ad hoc) Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 2001 were made applicable to such appointment. It appears that members of the Bar were appointed as Presiding Officers of the Fast Track Courts on the basis of the selection made through the above mentioned advertisement. When notification dated 18.5.2007 was issued for appointment of Additional District and Sessions Judge against the direct recruitment quota, for 22 advertised posts, some of the Presiding Officers of the Fast Track Courts appointed from the Bar pursuant to notification dated 26.5.2003 also submitted their applications for their selection on regular basis. These applications were considered and rejected by the Selection committee constituted by the High Court for appointment to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge in the State of Haryana by its decision taken in the meeting held on 19.1.2008. The said decision reads as under:-

Sub para iv of Paragraph 10 of Brij Mohan Lal's case (supra) not only permits appointment to these Fast Track Courts from the Bar, but also speaks of their continuation in service, and eventually absorption on regular vacancies in subsequent recruitment based upon their performance in the Fast Track Courts. High Court has been made the sole repository for selection against the direct recruitment quota for the superior/higher judicial service. These directions are admittedly binding upon the High Court as a precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution of India and it is the constitutional obligation of all the courts in the country as also all governmental authorities to follow and implement the same under Article 144 of the Constitution of India. The mandate is to continue such appointees if the Fast Track Courts still survive and to absorb them in service in future selections. Fast Track Courts are continuing on account of extension of the Central Scheme. As a natural consequence, the Officers appointed to man the posts are also working. They are to be absorbed in regular vacancies, though Hon'ble Supreme Court has not indicated about the nature of vacancies to be utilized for their absorption, but intention seems to consider their absorption against the direct recruitment quota. In any case, they are ineligible to be considered against the promotion quota which is meant only for Subordinate Judicial Officers of the rank of Civil Judges (Sr.Division) or equivalent posts. Thus, the only source against which these Fast Track Judges who are appointed at a high pedestal of Additional District and Sessions Judge in Fast Track Courts can be absorbed is against the vacancies meant for direct recruitment. This inference gets fortified by the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brij Mohan Lal's case (supra) in sub-para (4) when it states, "they may be absorbed in regular vacancies, if subsequent recruitment takes place and their performance in the Fast Track Courts is found satisfactory." We do not fall in line with the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners that Brij Mohan Lal's case (supra) do not contemplate their absorption against the direct recruitment vacancies. As a matter of fact there is no embargo for such appointment.