Madhumita
Das and Ors. Vs. State of Orissa and Ors.
(Writ
Petition (C) No. 254 of 2008)
June
11, 2008
[Dr.
ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ]
The
following Order of the Court was delivered
Issue
notice.
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.
Back