Madhumita Das & Ors vs State Of Orissa & Ors
- SCC(2008) 6 SCC 731
- Neutral2008 INSC 747
- SCR[2008] 9 SCR 1126
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where ad-hoc judicial officers have been appointed to Fast Track Courts pursuant to a direction that they be considered for regular posts after such courts cease to function, and their performance has been found satisfactory through repeated continuation, they cannot be excluded from consideration for regular vacancies merely because they do not meet the eligibility criteria (such as age limits or professional status) prescribed for open recruitment from the Bar, as this would apply different yardsticks to candidates from different sources. When assessing suitability for appointment to regular posts, the same performance parameters must be applied to ad-hoc appointees as to candidates recruited through other sources; performance evaluation cannot employ different standards based on the source of recruitment. Ad-hoc judicial officers who have been continued in their posts on the basis of satisfactory performance retain the right to be considered for regular vacancies without requiring them to sit for recruitment examinations prescribed for the cadre, as this flows from the original direction that their cases be considered for absorption in regular posts after the ad-hoc scheme concludes.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Challenge in these writ petitions is to the Advertisement No.1 of 2008 issued by the Orissa High Court. The petitioners have been selected to function as ad-hoc Additional District Judges in terms of the
judgment of this Court in Brij Mohan Lal Vs. Union of India and Ors. (2002 (5) SCC 1). It is their grievance that 16 posts advertised also include the 9 posts presently held by the petitioners in the two writ petitions. It is pointed out that the eligibility criterion fixed in the advertisement rules out the present petitioners. Firstly, some of them are above the maximum age of 45 years and secondly, being Judicial Officers, they cannot apply for posts advertised for members of the Bar. It is also pointed out that in terms of what has been stated by this Court in Brij Mohan's case (supra), at paragraph-10, direction No.4, they are to be continued (in the ad-hoc posts) belonging to Fast Track Courts, and, thereafter, in respect of regular posts available, after the Fast Track Courts cease to function. Their cases are to be considered subject to their performance being found satisfactory. Their stand is that they have been continued from time to time. Obviously, their performance was found to be satisfactory. Presently, we are not concerned with that question which may have relevance only at the time of considering their absorption in respect of the regular vacancies. It is submitted by Mr. Uday U. Lalit, learned senior counsel that while assessing the performance, there cannot be different yardsticks, i.e. same parameters have to be adopted while judging the performance of the petitioners viz-a-viz. those which are recruited from another source, i.e. from amongst the Judicial Officers. We find substance in this plea also. Therefore, we direct that the process of selection pursuant to the Advertisement No.1 of 2008 may continue but that shall only be in respect of 7 posts, and not in respect of 9 posts presently held by the petitioners. It is pointed out that the High Court, after the advertisement has been issued, has issued certain letters regarding the non-disposal of adequate number of cases. The petitioners have given reasons as to why there could not be adequate disposal of the cases. Needless to say, the High Court shall consider the stand taken in the responses while judging their suitability for appointment on regular basis. The petitioners shall continue to hold the posts until further orders, for which necessary orders shall be passed by the High Court. It is made clear that as and when regular vacancies arise, cases of the petitioners shall be duly considered. There shall not be any need for them to appear in any examination meant for recruitment to the cadre of District Judge.
List these matters in the first week of September, 2008.
In the meantime, counter and rejoinder affidavits, if any, shall be filed.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free