Holding

The selection process under Advertisement No.1 of 2008 may proceed for only seven of the advertised posts and not for the nine ad‑hoc posts held by the petitioners, who shall retain their positions until further orders and be considered for regular vacancies without having to sit for the recruitment exam.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined nine ad‑hoc Additional District Judges appointed to Fast Track Courts who challenged an Orissa High Court advertisement for 16 direct recruitment posts, arguing that the advertisement’s eligibility criteria (maximum age of 45 years and requirement of being a member of the Bar) disqualified them. The petitioners contended that they should continue in their ad‑hoc posts and, when regular vacancies arise, be considered for appointment based on satisfactory performance without having to sit for the recruitment examination. The Court noted the earlier decision in Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India, which directed continuation of ad‑hoc judges until regular vacancies arise. It held that the selection process could proceed for only seven of the advertised posts, not the nine held by the petitioners, and ordered that the petitioners retain their current positions until further orders and be considered for regular vacancies without appearing for the exam. The High Court was directed to issue the necessary orders.

Issues considered

Whether the advertisement for direct recruitment of Additional District Judges can be applied to the nine ad‑hoc judges already holding Fast Track Court posts.
Whether the eligibility criteria of the advertisement (age limit and bar membership) disqualify the petitioners.
Whether the petitioners must appear for the regular recruitment examination or can be considered for regular vacancies based on performance.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 32

Subjects

Higher Judicial ServiceAdditional District Judgead‑hoc appointmentFast Track Courtsrecruitment advertisementeligibility criteriaArticle 32Supreme Courtselection process

Judgment

[2008] 9 S. C.R. 1126

A MADHUMITA DAS AND ORS.
... ..
V.
STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.
(Writ Petition (C) No. 254 of 2008)

June 11, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ]
)"

JUDICIARY: '."""

Higher Judicial Service - Direct recruitment of Additional
c District Judges -Advertisement No. 1 of 2008 issued by Orissa
High Court for 16 posts - Writ Petitions before Supreme Court
-
by 9 ad-hoc Additional District Judges appointed to funcgon
• I
as Fast Track Courts* - HELD: Process of selection pursuant
to the advertisement may continue, but that shall on/~.~ be in
D respect of 7 posts and not in respect of 9 posts held by the
petitioners - Petitioners shall continue to hold the posts until
further orders of the High Court - It is made clear that as and
when regular vacancies arise, cases of petitioners shall be
duly considered - There shall not be any need for them to
E appear in any examination meant for recruitment to the cadre
of District Judge.
J..
*Brij Mohan Lal Vs. Union of India and Ors. (2002 (5)
sec 1 - referred to.

F CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (CIVIL) No. "" ,_.
250 of 2008
Under Article 32 of the constitution of India
WITH
.G W.P. (C) No. 254 of 2008
Uday U. La lit, Rachana Srivastava for the Petitioners. '
..,, ~

The following Order of the Court was delivered

H 1126
MADHUMITA DAS A& ORS. v. STATE OF 1127
ORISSA & ORS.
.
_
Issue notice. A
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
B
judgment of this Court in Brij Mohan Lal Vs. Union of In-
dia 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 c
present petitioners. Firstly, some of them are above the maxi-
mum 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, D
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 per-
formance being found satisfactory. Their stand is that they have
been continued from time to time. Obviously, their performance E
was found to qe 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 vacan-
cies. It is submitted by Mr. Uday U. Lalit, learned senior coun-
sel that while assessing the performance, there cannot be dif- F
ferent 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. There-
fore, we direct that the process of selection pursuant to the Ad- G
vertisement 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 issuec:L has issued certain letters re-
garding the non-disposal of adequate number of cases. The H
1128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 9 S.C.R.

~
#
A 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 petition-
ers shall continue to hold the posts until further orders, for which
B 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.
R.P.
..

......