C. Yamini & Others vs The High Court For The State Of Andhra Pradesh At Amravathi & Anr.

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S).49 OF 2022

C. YAMINI & OTHERS ….PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMRAVATHI & ANR. ...RESPONDENT(S)

ORDER

1. The petitioners are members of the Andhra Pradesh State

Judicial Service who have approached this Court under Article 32 of

the Constitution with the following reliefs:­

(a) Issue appropriate writ or order or direction to the respondent no. 1 to call for the judgments of the petitioners for the elevation of judgeship to the High Court as judicial officer as defined in Art. 217(2)(a) of the Constitution of India; and

(b) Issue or pass any writ, direction or order, which this Signature Not Verified Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and Digitally signed by Ashwani Kumar circumstances of the case. Issue or pass any writ, direction Date: 2023.02.23 16:52:19 IST Reason:

or order, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

1

2. It reveals from the counter­affidavit filed by the respondents

that the petitioners were appointed in the cadre of District &

Sessions Judge on Ad­hoc basis to preside over the Fast Track

Courts under the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service

Special Rules for Adhoc Appointments, 2001 (hereinafter referred to

as the “Rules, 2001”) by order dated 6 th October, 2003 and in sequel

thereof, were appointed on regular basis in the cadre of District &

Sessions Judge under the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service

Rules, 2007(hereinafter being referred to as the “Rules 2007”) after

going through the process of selection, by Order dated 2 nd July,

2013 and there is no break in service of either of the petitioners in

the judicial service rendered by them in the cadre of District &

Sessions Judge.

3. The seniority list of Officers working in respect of District &

Sessions Judge cadre in terms of Rule 13 of the Rules, 2007 came

to be notified by the respondents on 5th January, 2022 and the

names of the present petitioners find place at serial nos.20, 21, 22

and 23 respectively. At the same time, those officers who were

2 junior to them in seniority in the District & Sessions Judge cadre

were placed at serial nos.24, 28, 29, 31 and 34, while overlooking

the claim of the petitioners, these officers have been elevated to the

Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the service which they

have rendered as a District & Sessions Judge Fast Track on being

appointed from 6th October 2003 has not been considered as a

judicial service for the purposes of their elevation to the Bench of

the High Court as defined under Article 217(2)(a) of the

Constitution.

5. Extract of the seniority list of District & Sessions Judge is

reproduced hereunder:­

SENIORITY LIST IN RESPECT OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGES

S. No. NAME OF OFFICER SARVASRI 1­19 XXX XXX XXX

20. KUM. C. YAMINI

21. Y.V.S.B.G. PARDHA SARADHI

22. N. SOLOMON RAJU

23. SMT. A. BHARATHI

24. B. SYAM SUNDER 25­27 XXX XXX XXX

28. V. SRINIVAS

29. B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHY

3

30. XXX XXX XXX

31. D. VENKATA RAMANA 32­33 XXX XXX XXX

34. V. GOPALAKRISHNA RAO 35­100 XXX XXX XXX

6. It has been averred that there were 9 vacancies in the High

Court for elevation from judicial service and the Registry put the list

of 27 eligible officers falling in the zone of consideration in the ratio

of 1:3, in order of seniority, who have regular judicial service of

minimum 10 years as Judge, which is the requirement of Article

217(2)(a) of the Constitution, were placed before the collegium,

which resulted in a situation that the names of officers at serial

nos.20 to 23, 25 and 26 of the seniority list dated 5 th January, 2022

were not considered, as according to the respondents, they have not

completed 10 years of regular judicial service and the names of

District & Sessions Judges at serial nos.1, 3, 4, 5, 24 and 27 to 48

were considered for elevation as each of them had completed 10

years of judicial service at the relevant point of time.

7. The question which has been raised in the instant petition at

the instance of the present petitioners has been examined by this

Court in Kum C. Yamini Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh &

4 Anr.(Civil Appeal No. 6296 of 2019 decided on 14 th August, 2019)

wherein the three­Judge Bench of this Court, after examining their

nature of appointment as a District & Sessions Judge Fast Track on

ad­hoc basis under the Rules, 2001 and later appointed by Order

dated 2nd July, 2013 on regular basis and becoming members of the

Rules, 2007 held that the petitioners are not entitled to claim

benefit of seniority from the date of their initial appointment as

District & Sessions Judge Fast Track and other consequential

reliefs prayed for. At the same time, limited benefit of service

rendered as Fast Track Court Judges was granted to them only for

the purpose of pensionary and other retiral benefits. The relevant

part is as under:­

“14.…..The claim of seniority will depend upon several factors, nature of appointment, rules as per which the appointments are made and when appointments are made, were such appointments to the cadre posts or not etc. When the appellants were not appointed to any regular posts in the A.P. Judicial Service, appellants cannot claim seniority based on their ad hoc appointments to preside over Fast Track Courts. We are of the view that the ratio decided in the said judgments relied on by the appellants would not render any assistance in support of their case.”

“17. We have perused the aforesaid judgment and we are in agreement with the view taken by a two Judge Bench of this Court. Resultantly, while rejecting their claim for grant of seniority from the date of their initial appointment as Fast

5 Track Court District Judges and other reliefs, we direct that the appellants and all others who are similarly placed are to be given benefit of counting their service rendered as Fast Track Judges, for the purpose of pensionary and other retiral benefits.”

8. Since the services rendered by the petitioners as Fast Track

Court Judges have not been recognized by this Court for the

purpose of seniority except for pensionary and other retiral benefits,

the plea raised by the petitioners to consider their service rendered

as Fast Track Court Judges as a judicial service for the purpose of

Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution, in light of the judgment of this

Court what being prayed for, is not legally sustainable.

9. Consequently, the writ petition is without substance and is

accordingly, dismissed.

10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

……………………….J. (AJAY RASTOGI)

……………………….J. (BELA M. TRIVEDI)

NEW DELHI;

FEBRUARY 23, 2023.

6 7