Fast Track Court Judges’ Seniority Claim Rejected: Supreme Court’s Ruling Explained

The Supreme Court of India recently ruled in the case of Kum C. Yamini vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr., addressing the claims of former Fast Track Court (FTC) Judges seeking seniority from their initial appointments. The judgment clarifies the nature of FTC appointments and their implications on subsequent absorption into the regular judicial service.

Background of the Case

The appellants were appointed as ad hoc District Judges in Fast Track Courts under a scheme financed by the 11th Finance Commission. The appointments were made under special rules, namely, the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service Special Rules for Ad Hoc Appointments, 2001. These rules explicitly stated that FTC Judges were not part of the regular cadre and had no claim to absorption into permanent positions.

However, when their FTC tenure ended, they sought regularization. Their claims were initially dismissed in Brij Mohan Lal (2) vs. Union of India, where the Supreme Court ruled that FTC Judges could not be absorbed automatically but could apply for regular selection through a competitive process. Following this decision, some FTC Judges, including the appellants, participated in an examination and interview process in 2013, eventually securing regular appointments as District Judges.

Several years later, the appellants challenged their placement in the seniority list, arguing that their seniority should be counted from the date of their initial appointment as FTC Judges rather than their appointment through the 2013 selection process.

Key Legal Issues

• Whether the service rendered as an ad hoc District Judge in a Fast Track Court can be counted for seniority in the regular judicial service.
• Whether FTC Judges were appointed through a process equivalent to regular recruitment.
• Whether the rejection of their earlier claim for absorption barred them from claiming seniority from their initial appointment.

Arguments by the Appellants

The appellants contended:

• They were appointed as District Judges in FTCs through a process similar to that for regular judges.
• Their work experience as FTC Judges should be counted for seniority in the regular cadre.
• Their absorption into the regular judicial service in 2013 was not a fresh appointment but a continuation of their previous tenure.
• Their exclusion from the seniority list before regularly appointed judges was arbitrary and unjust.

Arguments by the Respondents (State of Andhra Pradesh & High Court)

The respondents countered:

• FTC appointments were made under special rules and were explicitly temporary.
• The Supreme Court had previously rejected their absorption into the regular cadre, requiring them to go through a fresh selection process.
• Allowing their claim would create an unfair advantage over candidates who were appointed through the regular process.
• The appellants’ selection in 2013 was an independent appointment, and their seniority should be counted from that date.

Supreme Court’s Observations

1. FTC Appointments Were Temporary

The Court emphasized that FTC Judges were appointed under a distinct legal framework and were never part of the regular judicial service. It stated:

“The Fast Track Courts were initially sanctioned for five years under the 11th Finance Commission. The selections made for FTCs were ad hoc and distinct from regular judicial service.”

2. Rejection of Earlier Absorption Claims

The Court noted that the appellants had previously sought direct absorption into the regular cadre, a claim that had been explicitly rejected in Brij Mohan Lal (2). It held:

“When their claim for absorption was rejected, their subsequent selection in 2013 could only be considered a fresh appointment, not a continuation of previous service.”

3. No Right to Seniority from Initial Appointment

The Court rejected the argument that FTC service should count towards seniority, ruling:

“If a person is not appointed to any post in the cadre, such person cannot claim seniority over individuals appointed through the prescribed process.”

4. Precedents Do Not Support Their Claim

The appellants cited earlier cases on seniority disputes, but the Court found these inapplicable, stating:

“The cases relied upon by the appellants pertain to disputes between direct recruits and promotees, not ad hoc appointments like those of FTC Judges.”

5. Pension and Retirement Benefits

Although rejecting their seniority claim, the Court granted some relief by allowing their FTC service to count towards pension and retirement benefits:

“The service rendered as Fast Track Judges shall be counted for pensionary and other retiral benefits.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court ruled:

• The appellants’ claim for seniority from their initial FTC appointment was rejected.
• FTC service was temporary and separate from the regular judicial service.
• Seniority in the regular cadre would be counted from their appointment through the 2013 selection process.
• FTC service would, however, be considered for pension and retirement benefits.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces the principle that ad hoc appointments do not confer permanent rights. It upholds the sanctity of regular recruitment processes and prevents backdoor entries into seniority lists. At the same time, it provides some relief by recognizing FTC service for pensionary benefits, ensuring fairness to those who served in temporary judicial roles.

Petitioner Name: Kum C. Yamini.
Respondent Name: The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice S.A. Bobde, Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Justice B.R. Gavai.
Place Of Incident: Andhra Pradesh.
Judgment Date: 14-08-2019.

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

Download Judgment: Kum C. Yamini vs The State of Andhra Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 14-08-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Promotion Cases
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by S. A. Bobde
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Subhash Reddy
See all petitions in Judgment by B R Gavai
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2019
See all petitions in 2019 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