'Service As Adhoc Judges Can't Be Considered For Elevation As HC Judges' : Supreme Court Rejects Plea Of Judicial Officers From AP

The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a writ petition filed by nine judicial officers from Andhra Pradesh seeking to direct the Andhra Pradesh High Court to consider them for elevation as HC judges.

The seniority list drawn by the High Court of judicial officers eligible for consideration did not include the petitioners' name on the ground that they had not completed ten years of service as a judicial officer, which is the requirement under Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution. According to the petitioners, if their service rendered in Fast Track courts as ad-hoc judges is taken into account, they will meet the eligibility criteria under Article 217(2)(a).

They 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 by order dated 6th October, 2003. They were appointed on regular basis in the cadre of District & Sessions Judge under the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007 after going through the process of selection, by Order dated 2nd July, 2013.

As per the seniority list notified by the High Court s on 5th January, 2022, the petitioners were not eligible for elevation.

A bench comprising Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela Trivedi refused to accept the petitioners' claim. The bench noted that the petitioners had earlier filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court in 2019 aggrieved with the seniority list. In that writ petition, it was decided that the petitioners' service as ad-hoc judges can only be counted for pensionary and other retiral benefits and not for seniority.

"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", the Court had ruled in 2019 against the petitioners(Kum C. Yamini Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr, Civil Appeal No. 6296 of 2019 decided on 14th August, 2019).

Following that precedent, the bench rejected the present claim of the petitioners.

"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", the bench observed while dismissing their writ petition.

Case Title : C Yamini and others vs High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi and another

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 130

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Aruna Gupta, AOR Mr. Ramesh Allanki, Adv. Mr. Syed Ahmad Naqvi, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Gagan Gupta, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR

Constitution of India - Article 217(2)(a) - Supreme Court rejects the petition filed by nine judicial officers from Andhra Pradesh for consideration for elevation as HC judges- Court holds that their service as ad-hoc judges cannot be reckoned for the purposes of Article 217(2)(a)-Para 8

Click here to read the judgment