R DURAISAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KEEPING in mind the huge pendency of cases at the level of District Judges as well as recognising the speedy trial as a fundamental right, the concept of appointing Fast Track Courts of Session was evolved and the Government in G.O.Ms.No.1251, Home (Courts 1A) Department, dated 18.12.2001, issued orders for constitution of 19 Fast Track Courts and accordingly, sanction was also given. Based on the said Government order, the Registrar-General, on the basis of the resolution of the High Court, earmarked 15 posts of Additional District Judges to be filled up by way of direct recruitment from the Bar on ad-hoc basis and the remaining 4 posts of Additional District Judges to be filled up by way of promotion from among the eligible Civil Judges Senior Division again on ad-hoc basis. Pursuant to the above, applications were called for from the eligible advocates and selection process was undertaken. Out of 15 candidates selected for the said post from the Bar, the petitioner by name R.Duraisamy was one among them. Pursuant to the selection, the Government issued G.O.Ms.No.158, Public (Special. A) Department, dated 14.02.2002, appointing all the 15 selected candidates including the petitioner to the post of Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) on ad-hoc basis subject to terms and conditions fixed by the High Court.

(2.) THE petitioner, while he was serving as Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Chennai, was placed under suspension by the order of the Registrar-General dated 26.03.2005 on the ground that certain allegations of serious misconduct and corruption were noticed and a disciplinary enquiry was contemplated. THE petitioner also submitted his explanation and charges were also issued, nevertheless no enquiry was conducted. By G.O.Ms.No.83, Public (Special.A) Department, dated 12.1.2007, the service of the petitioner was terminated with immediate effect due to his unsatisfactory performance. That order was also passed in respect of other six Additional District Judges, who were selected and appointed along with the petitioner, on the same grounds. THE petitioner questions the said order in this writ petition.

(3.) WE have considered the respective submissions. As far as the right of the petitioner to question the order, it should be considered keeping in mind the nature of his appointment. The Fast Track Courts were created for being filled up by ad-hoc appointees without any further rights for the said post and a period of five years was also fixed. As far as the termination of such Fast Track Court Judges on the ground that their performance were not satisfactory, without there being any enquiry conducted is concerned, we may usefully refer to the Division Bench order made in W.P.No.8677 of 2007 dated 18.9.2009, referred to above, wherein the challenge was to the very same impugned order of termination which was passed in respect of seven judicial officers including the petitioner. The Division Bench has said that ad-hoc appointees have no right and the order of termination did not cast any stigma.