P RADHA Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE prayer in these writ petitions are to quash the proceedings of the Registrar General, High Court of Madras, 4th respondent herein, issued in ROC.No.21/2012-Con.B2, dated 25.4.2012 and direct the respondents to consider absorption and regularisation of the petitioners' services as Additional District Judges, following the guidelines laid down in the decision reported in (2002) 5 SCC 1 (Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India).

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for disposal of these writ petitions are as follows:

(3.) MR.R.Sureshkumar, learned counsel appearing for the High Court on the other hand submitted that the appointment order issued to the petitioners by order of the Government dated 14.2.2002 itself was on adhoc basis subject to the terms and conditions fixed by the High Court. In the said order itself the orders regarding posting and training, if any was ordered to be issued by the High Court. While permitting the petitioners to join duty as adhoc Judges of the FTCs, the High Court issued terms and conditions specifically stating that their appointment shall be initially for a period of two years renewable for further period and the maximum period being five years from the date of assumption of office as FTC Judge. Regardless of the appointment of a Judge of FTC, his/her services can be terminated at any time even without notice; reverting him/her to substantive post of subordinate judge in the event of the High Court forming an opinion of such FTC Judge not functioning conforming to the standards and objectives and intend of the Fast Track Scheme. The learned counsel also submitted that at any time they can be reverted to the said position in the event the High Court is of the view that their services are no longer required and therefore the petitioners have no right, much less any legal right to challenge the order of the 4th respondent. The learned counsel heavily relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court reported in (2011) 10 SCC 1 (Rajendra Singh Verma v. Lt. Governor (NCT of Delhi) and the order of the Supreme Court passed on 19.4.2012 in Transfer Case (Civil) No.22 of 2011 and submitted that the petitioners were not terminated/removed from their services and they were discontinued and relieved without any stigma. The petitioners were discontinued and relieved from their contractual services due to the closure of the FTCs and sanction of 49 Additional District and Sessions Judge Courts pursuant to the sanction order issued by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No.475 Home (Courts-II) Department, dated 29.8.2011. The Courts having been converted as Additional District and Sessions Courts, the petitioners, who were selected only as adhoc Judges in FTC Courts cannot discharge the functions of Additional District and Sessions Judges, unless they were regularly selected by following the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Services (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007 as directed by the Supreme Court in its order dated 19.4.2012. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order as contended by the petitioners. The learned counsel further submitted that if the petitioners are willing to be selected as Additional District Judges, they have to wait for such selection if and when the High Court issues any notification calling for applications.