2011 (11) TMI 784 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Petitioner's claim for seniority over opposite parties 3 and 4.
2. Applicability of service rendered in Fast Track Court towards seniority.
3. Legality of the Full Court's decision rejecting the petitioner's representation.
4. Validity of the selection grade conferred on opposite parties 3 and 4.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Petitioner's Claim for Seniority Over Opposite Parties 3 and 4:
The petitioner sought seniority over opposite parties 3 and 4, arguing that his service as Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, should be considered continuous and regularized under the Orissa Superior Judicial Service (Senior Branch). The petitioner's representation was rejected by the Full Court, which communicated the decision via letter dated 8.8.2011. The petitioner contended that this rejection was contrary to the Supreme Court's direction in Brij Mohanlal v. Union of India, AIR 2002 S.C. 2096, which mandates that service in Fast Track Courts be deemed as service in the parent cadre. The petitioner argued that his initial appointment followed the statutory procedures under the Orissa Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963, and the Orissa Judicial Service (Special Scheme) Rules, 2001, and thus, his seniority should be counted from his initial appointment date.

2. Applicability of Service Rendered in Fast Track Court Towards Seniority:
The core issue was whether the service rendered by the petitioner in the Fast Track Court should be considered while fixing his seniority after regularization. The Full Court's Committee rejected the petitioner's representation, stating that his service in the Fast Track Court was ad hoc and could not be counted towards seniority. However, the court observed that the petitioner's appointment was made following statutory procedures and that he continued uninterrupted service until regularization. The Supreme Court in Brij Mohanlal's case had directed that service in Fast Track Courts be deemed as service in the parent cadre, reinforcing the petitioner's claim for seniority.

3. Legality of the Full Court's Decision Rejecting the Petitioner's Representation:
The court found that the Full Court's decision to reject the petitioner's representation was erroneous. The Committee's report, accepted by the Full Court, failed to consider the Supreme Court's binding direction in Brij Mohanlal's case and the statutory provisions under Rule 17 of the Orissa Superior Judicial Service Rules, 1963. The court held that the petitioner's uninterrupted service in the Fast Track Court should be counted towards his seniority, and the Full Court's interpretation was incorrect.

4. Validity of the Selection Grade Conferred on Opposite Parties 3 and 4:
The petitioner argued that the selection grade conferred on opposite parties 3 and 4 was illegal as they were appointed after him. The court noted that the petitioner became eligible for selection grade on 25.4.2007, while opposite parties 3 and 4 were eligible only in February 2008. The court held that the promotion of opposite parties 3 and 4 to the selection grade prior to the petitioner was illegal. The court also rejected the contention that the petitioner's promotion was fortuitous, citing the Supreme Court's decision in Rudra Kumar Sain v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 2808, which held that long-term ad hoc appointments could not be considered fortuitous.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the report of the Committee dated 3.3.2011, the letter rejecting the petitioner's representation, and the notification conferring selection grade on opposite parties 3 and 4. The court directed the re-fixation of the petitioner's seniority from 26.4.2002 and ordered the preparation of a fresh seniority list within two months, following the Supreme Court's judgments and the observations made in this judgment. The writ petition was allowed, and no order as to costs was made.