Summary
The Supreme Court set aside directions to reconsider absorption of three contractual Fast Track Court judges into the regular judicial service. The proviso to rule 7 gave them a right to consideration, not automatic absorption. Their records had been considered twice by a committee of High Court judges and they were not found fit; that consideration was not challenged as defective. State recommendations and lengthy contractual service did not establish entitlement. The Court expressly based its decision on rule 7 without deciding whether Brij Mohan Lal (2) governed their case.
Issues
- Whether rule 7’s special proviso mandated absorption or only consideration.
- Whether State recommendations and the original contractual selection required regular appointment.
- Whether the appeal required a final decision on applicability of Brij Mohan Lal (2).
Provisions considered
- Rule 7, proviso concerning the three ad hoc Additional Sessions Judges, Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2006The special proviso contemplated consideration for Grade-I absorption rather than compulsory absorption. Actual consideration had occurred twice, making it unnecessary to decide whether “may” imposed a duty even to consider. (¶¶ 4, 26, 27, 30, 31)
Held
- Even though the proviso was framed for these three officers, its language did not confer automatic absorption. Whether the authority had discretion to withhold consideration itself was unnecessary to decide because consideration had in fact occurred. (¶ 26)
- The committee of three High Court judges examined the service material twice and rejected absorption. The officers did not challenge the manner of consideration or identify a defect in it. The judicial directions could not substitute State recommendations for that assessment. (¶¶ 27, 30, 31)
- Articles 233–235 protect the High Court’s constitutional role in the subordinate judiciary. The State’s favourable recommendations did not establish a right to appointment contrary to the High Court’s assessment of suitability. (¶¶ 27, 28)
- The original written test and interview were for limited contractual appointments to temporary Fast Track Courts. That selection and approximately ten years’ service did not themselves create a right to regularisation under the special proviso. (¶¶ 29, 30)
- Failure in subsequent selection tests reinforced the record, but the operative reasoning rested on rule 7. The Court expressly found it unnecessary to determine whether the ratio of Brij Mohan Lal (2) applied to these officers. The withdrawal-based maintainability objection was not the stated basis of decision. (¶¶ 22, 25, 30, 31)
Result
High Court administration’s appeal allowed; impugned judgment directing the absorption-consultation exercise set aside. No costs.