Fast Track Court Judges’ Regularization Denied: Supreme Court Overturns High Court Decision

The issue of the absorption and regularization of Fast Track Court (FTC) judges has been a longstanding legal debate in India. The case of The Gauhati High Court Through The Registrar General vs. Goto Ete and Others revolved around the appointment and regularization of judicial officers who had been serving on an ad hoc basis. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated April 23, 2018, overturned the decision of the Gauhati High Court, holding that ad hoc appointments to the judiciary do not create a right to permanent absorption.

The ruling clarifies the limitations of Rule 7 of the Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2006, and emphasizes the importance of following due process in judicial appointments. The judgment aligns with the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Brij Mohan Lal (2) vs. Union of India, which mandated competitive examinations for the absorption of FTC judges.

Background of the Case

The case originated in Arunachal Pradesh when the state government issued an advertisement on July 13, 2001, for the appointment of Additional Deputy Commissioners with the powers of Additional Sessions Judges. These appointments were made on a contract basis until March 31, 2005, and were subsequently extended until March 31, 2010. The respondents, who were selected for these positions, sought regularization in the Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service.

Following the implementation of the Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2006, Rule 7 provided that the ad hoc FTC judges could be considered for absorption in Grade-I of the service. However, the Gauhati High Court rejected their claims for regularization, leading to their termination on January 7, 2013.

The respondents challenged their termination through Writ Petition (Civil) No. 776 of 2013, which the Gauhati High Court allowed on January 19, 2016. The High Court directed the state government to start the consultation process for their absorption and directed the High Court to reconsider their cases. Aggrieved by this order, the Gauhati High Court appealed to the Supreme Court.

Legal Issues Considered

The primary legal issues before the Supreme Court were:

• Whether the ad hoc appointments of FTC judges created a legal right for regularization.
• Whether the proviso to Rule 7 of the Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2006, mandated their absorption.
• Whether the High Court erred in applying different standards from those established in Brij Mohan Lal (2).

Arguments by Both Parties

Petitioner’s Argument (Gauhati High Court):

• The appointments of the respondents were contractual and temporary, made for a specific tenure under the FTC scheme.
• The proviso to Rule 7 only provided for consideration and did not create an automatic right to absorption.
• The respondents were given a chance to participate in the selection process for regular Grade-I positions but failed to qualify.
• The ruling in Brij Mohan Lal (2) required FTC judges to undergo a written examination and interview before being considered for absorption.

Respondent’s Argument (Goto Ete and Others):

• The respondents were appointed through a selection process conducted by the High Court and had been serving in the judicial system for more than a decade.
• Their services were extended by the state government multiple times, showing an intention to retain them.
• The High Court’s refusal to consider their absorption under Rule 7 was arbitrary.
• The respondents should be treated differently from other FTC judges since they had been appointed through due process.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, comprising Justices A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, rejected the High Court’s ruling and held that the respondents had no vested right to be absorbed.

Key Excerpt from the Supreme Court Judgment:

“The proviso to Rule 7 of the 2006 Rules only states that the three ad hoc Additional Sessions Judges may be considered for absorption. It does not create an automatic right of absorption.”

The Court further observed:

“The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court proceeds on the assumption that these respondents had a legal right to absorption. However, the discretion of the High Court in judicial appointments must be respected, particularly when the respondents failed to qualify in the selection process.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court ruled:

• The decision of the Gauhati High Court was set aside.
• The termination of the respondents was upheld.
• The requirement of competitive examination for absorption in judicial services, as laid down in Brij Mohan Lal (2), was reaffirmed.
• No costs were imposed on either party.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces the principle that ad hoc appointments in the judiciary do not create a vested right to permanent absorption. The ruling aligns with the Supreme Court’s earlier decisions in similar cases, ensuring that judicial appointments follow a competitive and merit-based process.

The Supreme Court’s decision also clarifies that Rule 7 of the Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2006, only provides for consideration and does not mandate absorption. The judgment safeguards the independence of the judiciary by ensuring that regular appointments adhere to proper selection criteria.

This ruling sets an important precedent for judicial appointments and affirms that even long-serving ad hoc judges must qualify through prescribed selection processes before being absorbed into the regular judiciary.

Petitioner Name: The Gauhati High Court Through The Registrar General.
Respondent Name: Goto Ete and Others.
Judgment By: Justice A.K. Sikri, Justice Ashok Bhushan.
Place Of Incident: Arunachal Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 23-04-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: The Gauhati High Cou vs Goto Ete and Others Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 23-04-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Termination Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by A.K. Sikri
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category