GUNJA BHUUVANESHWARI Vs. HIGH COURT OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner before this court has filed the present petition stating that an Advertisement was issued on 13.08.2002 notifying 24 posts of Additional District and Sessions Judges to preside over the Fast Track Courts on ad hoc basis. She applied for the post and she was selected. An order was issued on 06.10.2003 appointing the petitioner as a Fast Track Court Judge under the A.P. State Higher Judicial Services Special for Adhoc Appointment Rules, 2001. The petitioner 's contention is that the respondent/High Court, while complying with the judgment delivered by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Brij Mohan Lal vs. Union of India and others (2012) 6 SCC 502, has considered the case of the petitioner for regularisation as a regular District Judge on the Telangana State Judicial Services. However, she has not been regularised, as she was not able to secure 35% marks prescribed as cut off marks for the purpose of regularisation.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this court that no marks were given to the petitioner for the years of service rendered by her and the petitioner has rendered about 15 years of service as a Fast Track Judge and therefore, she was entitled for 15 marks under the viva voce head. Other grounds have also been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner stating that the disposal of the petitioner was very high, she has worked as an excellent Judicial Officer, she belongs to woman category and therefore, she is entitled to be regularised. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment delivered by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan Lal vs. Union of India and others (2002) 5 SCC 1 and the case of Brij Mohan Lal (1 supra). Heavy reliance has been placed upon paragraphs 7 and 10 of the judgment in the case of Brij Mohan Lal (2 supra) and the contention of the learned counsel is that keeping in view the periodical review done by the High Court based upon the performance, appropriate order of regularisation should have been passed.

(3.) This court has carefully gone through both the judgments and paragraph 207.9 of the judgment delivered by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan Lal (1 supra) reads as under:-