217(2)(a) of the Constitution of India; and (b) Issue or pass any writ, direction or order, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/regularization-of-village-level-workers-in-tamil-nadu/
The seniority list of Officers working in respect of District & Sessions Judge cadre in terms of Rule 13 of the Rules, 2007 came to be notified by the respondents on 5 January, 2022 and the names of the present petitioners find place at serial nos.20, 21, 22 and 23 respectively. At the same time, those officers who were junior to them in seniority in the District & Sessions Judge cadre were placed at serial nos.24, 28, 29, 31 and 34, while overlooking the claim of the petitioners, these officers have been elevated to the Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
SYAM SUNDER 25-27 XXX XXX XXX 28.
GOPALAKRISHNA RAO 35-100 XXX XXX XXX 6.
(Civil Appeal
No 6296 of 2019 decided on 14 August, 2019) wherein the three-Judge Bench of this Court, after examining their nature of appointment as a District & Sessions Judge Fast Track on ad-hoc basis under the Rules, 2001 and later appointed by Order dated 2 July, 2013 on regular basis and becoming members of the Rules, 2007 held that the petitioners are not entitled to claim benefit of seniority from the date of their initial appointment as District & Sessions Judge Fast Track and other consequential reliefs prayed for.
Resultantly, while rejecting their claim for grant of seniority from the date of their initial appointment as Fast Track Court District Judges and other reliefs, we direct that the appellants and all others who are similarly placed are to be given benefit of counting their service rendered as Fast Track Judges, for the purpose of pensionary and other retiral benefits.”
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/judgment-on-execution-of-lease-deed-for-remaining-land/
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. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
Case Title: C. YAMINI Vs. THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI (2023 INSC 155)
Case Number: W.P.(C) No.-000049 / 2022
