VIJAY KUMAR JAIN Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE ALIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUNIL Ambwani, J. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 20-11-2001 passed by the District Judge, Aligarh, terminating petitioner's temporary services as Reader of newly created Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No. 2), Aligarh. Petitioner has further prayed for calling for the record and quashing appointment of Respondent No. 4 in pursuance of circular letter of this Court dated 25-7-2001.

(2.) THE facts of the case, in brief, are that petitioner retired as Munsarim-cum-Reader from the Judgship of Aligarh. In pursuance of the recommendations of eleventh Finance Commission, Fast Track Courts have been established temporarily for five years, to clear the back-log of sessions trial Court cases pending all over the country. By notification dated 23-3-2001, 182 Fast Track Courts were sanctioned for the State of Uttar Pradesh to be made by Additional District and Sessions Judges. In this case, we are concerned with the staff attached to such temporarily created Fast Track Courts. By the same notification, sanction was given for 182 temporary posts of Readers, 182 posts of Stenographers, 182 posts of peons and 36 posts of drivers. THE notification in para 2 made it specifically clear that each post shall be filled by retired officials who shall be paid the salary after reducing their pension. THE posts are to be sanctioned every year up to 26-2-2005 and, thereafter, they shall be treated to have ceased automatically. THE Courts shall be treated to be sanctioned on the basis of one time temporary addition. In pursuance of the aforesaid notification, five temporary Fast Track Courts were sanctioned for the District of Aligarh. On 25-7-2001, the Registrar General issued a circular letter No. 24/j. R. (J) with reference to Court's endorsement No. 114/dr (S)/2001 dated 15-5-2001 issuing guidelines for ensuring expeditious disposal of cases and also for keeping these Courts confined to disposal of sessions triable cases, criminal revisions and criminal appeals. THE earlier endorsement made it clear that sufficient work shall be transferred to these Courts, including the cases of under-trial prisoners who are languishing in Jails. Since the statistics sanctioned by the District Courts revealed that Fast Track Courts for the purpose for which they were established is not being achieved due to non-availability of retired Civil Court employees, those retired employees who were employed were not in a position to cope up with the work and they were not able to own the responsibility of the record and some other difficulties were posed, the following directions were given: " (i) Fast Track Courts should be manned by the Senior Experienced Additional Sessions Judges so as to fulfil the object for which these Courts have been established. (ii) Where it is not manned by the senior experienced Additional District Judge, District Judge will make over the cases to respective Court keeping in view the object of the Fast Track Courts and also to ensure proper administration of justice. (iii) Where the retired employees are not available or they are otherwise incapable to perform the duties assigned to them, District Judges may proceed to make ad hoc appointments for specified period and may make internal arrangement by providing experienced personnel to these Fast Track Courts and these ad hoc appointees may be posted in other Courts so as to make these Courts more effective and functional. (iv) THE District Judges should also provide additional hands to Fast Track Court from out of the existing strength where number of Courts are already lying vacant in the district. (v) Necessary infrastructure facilities should be provided to these Courts from the existing stock. "

(3.) IN the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, Counsel for petitioner has submitted that notification dated 23- 3-2001 authorised engagement of only retired hands subject to adjustment of their pension on temporary basis. The Committee found the petitioner suitable and recommended his appointment. Sri S. M. Haseeb, Presiding Officer of Fast Track Court No. 2, gave a certificate of satisfactory work to the petitioner on 1-12-2001. There was nothing on record to show that petitioner was unfit or that his efficiency had fallen below the standard. His services were terminated only to accommodate fresh hands who were appointed on ad hoc basis without there being wide advertisement, in purported compliance of circular dated 26-7-2001. According to him, the District Judge had used the contents of the circular letter to make ad hoc appointment of his own choice and that petitioner's services were terminated with mala fide intentions. He also submits that the Supreme Court in Subedar Singh v. District Judge, Mirzapur, (2000) 1 SCC 37, has held that the District Judge cannot make appoint dehors rules and has held against any ad hoc arrangement to be made by District Judges in making appointment in their judgships.