No ground to consider the claim for grant of seniority from the date of initial appointment as Ad-Hoc District Judges: Apex Court
In this month, the Apex Court hears the review petition in the very case of Kum C. Yamini v. State of A.P.[1]. The petition was all about the appointments to the post of the district judges. The 3 judges bench consisting of Justice SA Bodbe, Justice R. Subhash Reddy and Justice BR Gavai held that the judges cannot claim their seniority from the date of the initial appointment as the ad hoc judges.
The petitioner filed the writ petition questioning the procedure of appointment of the District Judges. The appellant was appointed as the Ad hoc Judge in the Fast Trial Court through the procedure established by law. She completed the probation of 2 years from the date of her joining duty. It further stated that-
“The High Court has opined that in view of the rules which govern the 7 WWW.LIVELAW.IN C.A .@ S.L.P(C) No.20990/17 etc. etc. appointment to the post of ad hoc District Judge, the appellant is not entitled to claim seniority from the date of initial appointment. as the rules mentioned.[2]”
The appellants contended that there was no justification as to why her claim of seniority should be denied as the procedure established was applicable to regular appointments in cadre. But the learned counsel appearing for the High Court contended that the appointed of the appellant was only for the Fast Trial Court as and Ad hoc Judge under the separate set of rules[3]. It further contended that-
“It is submitted that in the very same rules, it is made clear that they have no claim against regular vacancies. Further it is contended that when their claim for absorption is rejected by the High Court and confirmed by this Court, it is not open for the appellants to claim seniority from the date of initial appointment.[4]”
The apex court observed that the rules were made under Article 233 and the Proviso of Article 309, which gives the State Judicial Service to make laws over these issues. The court held that-
“The claim of the appellants that they were appointed as ad hoc District Judges by following the procedure which is similar to the procedure for appointments to the sanctioned posts in the regular cadre, is no ground to accede to their request to reckon their seniority in the permanent cadre of District Judges, from their initial appointment as the District Judges for the Fast Track Courts. The appointments which came to be made for selecting District Judges for Fast Track Courts sanctioned under the 11th Finance Scheme are totally different and distinct, compared to appointments which are to be made for regular vacant posts of District Judges covered under A.P. Higher Judicial Service.[5]”
The SC while rejecting the plea of the Appellant, disposed the suit helding that the Seniority cannot be claim from the date of the initial appointment of the Ad hoc judges for the purpose of pensionary as well as the retirement benefits.
Report by-
Sakshee Sahay
Student Member,
Reporters Committee
INBA
[1] Civil Appeal No. 6299 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 20990 of 2017)
[2] https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/pdf_upload-363293.pdf
[3] Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service Special Rules for Ad Hoc Appointments, 2001