LEGAL ISSUE: Whether service as a District & Sessions Judge in a Fast Track Court can be considered as judicial service for elevation to the High Court under Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution of India.
CASE TYPE: Service Law, Constitutional Law
Case Name: C. Yamini & Others vs. The High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi & Anr.
Judgment Date: 23 February 2023
Date of the Judgment: 23 February 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 135
Judges: Hon’ble Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi
Can prior service in Fast Track Courts be counted towards the minimum judicial service requirement for elevation to a High Court? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a service law matter concerning judicial officers in Andhra Pradesh. This judgment clarifies the criteria for judicial service eligibility for High Court appointments. The bench consisted of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi, who delivered a unanimous decision.
Case Background
The petitioners, members of the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service, were initially appointed as District & Sessions Judges on an ad-hoc basis to preside over Fast Track Courts on 6th October 2003, under the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service Special Rules for Adhoc Appointments, 2001. Subsequently, they were appointed on a regular basis as District & Sessions Judges on 2nd July 2013, under the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007. The petitioners’ grievance arose when their service in Fast Track Courts was not considered as qualifying judicial service for elevation to the High Court, as defined under Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution of India. This led to their names being overlooked for consideration, while officers junior to them were elevated.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 6th October 2003 | Petitioners appointed as District & Sessions Judges on ad-hoc basis in Fast Track Courts. |
| 2nd July 2013 | Petitioners appointed as District & Sessions Judges on a regular basis. |
| 5th January 2022 | Seniority list of District & Sessions Judges published, placing petitioners at serial nos. 20-23. |
| Various Dates | Junior officers elevated to High Court, overlooking petitioners. |
| 2022 | Petitioners file writ petition in the Supreme Court. |
| 23rd February 2023 | Supreme Court dismisses the writ petition. |
Legal Framework
The core legal provision in question is Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution of India
, which specifies the qualifications for appointment as a Judge of a High Court. It states that a person must have held a judicial office in India for at least ten years to be eligible for appointment. The petitioners contended that their service as District & Sessions Judges in Fast Track Courts should be considered as judicial service for the purpose of this provision.
Arguments
Petitioners’ Arguments:
- The petitioners argued that their service as District & Sessions Judges in Fast Track Courts should be considered as judicial service for the purpose of elevation to the High Court under Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution.
- They contended that their initial appointment as District & Sessions Judge in Fast Track Courts on 6th October 2003 should be counted towards their total judicial service.
- The petitioners claimed that they have been continuously serving as judicial officers since their initial appointment in 2003.
Respondents’ Arguments:
- The respondents argued that the service rendered by the petitioners as Fast Track Court Judges cannot be considered for the purpose of seniority or for elevation to the High Court.
- They relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kum C. Yamini vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 6296 of 2019), which held that service in Fast Track Courts cannot be counted for seniority, except for pensionary benefits.
- The respondents maintained that only regular judicial service of a minimum of 10 years is considered for elevation to the High Court under Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Service in Fast Track Courts should be considered as judicial service for High Court elevation. |
✓ Initial appointment as District & Sessions Judge in Fast Track Courts should be counted. ✓ Continuous service since 2003 as judicial officers. |
Petitioners |
| Service in Fast Track Courts cannot be considered for High Court elevation. |
✓ Reliance on Kum C. Yamini vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 6296 of 2019). ✓ Only regular judicial service of 10 years counts under Article 217(2)(a). |
Respondents |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the service rendered by the petitioners as Fast Track Court Judges can be considered as judicial service for the purpose of Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution of India for elevation to the High Court.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether service as Fast Track Court Judge counts as judicial service for High Court elevation | No | The Court relied on its previous judgment in Kum C. Yamini vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 6296 of 2019), which held that service in Fast Track Courts cannot be counted for seniority except for pensionary benefits. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
- Kum C. Yamini vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 6296 of 2019) – Supreme Court of India: This case was crucial, where the Supreme Court had already ruled that service in Fast Track Courts cannot be counted for seniority, except for pensionary benefits.
Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution of India
: This provision specifies the qualifications for appointment as a Judge of a High Court, requiring a minimum of ten years of judicial service.
| Authority | Court | How Considered |
|---|---|---|
| Kum C. Yamini vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 6296 of 2019) | Supreme Court of India | Followed |
| Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution of India | Constitution of India | Interpreted |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Petitioners’ submission that their service in Fast Track Courts should be considered as judicial service for the purpose of elevation to the High Court | Rejected |
| Respondents’ submission that service in Fast Track Courts cannot be considered for the purpose of seniority or for elevation to the High Court | Accepted |
How each authority was viewed by the Court:
- The Supreme Court followed its previous judgment in Kum C. Yamini vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 6296 of 2019), which had already decided that service in Fast Track Courts cannot be counted for seniority, except for pensionary benefits.
- The Court interpreted
Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution of India
to mean that only regular judicial service of a minimum of 10 years is considered for elevation to the High Court.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the precedent set in its earlier judgment in Kum C. Yamini vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 6296 of 2019). The Court emphasized the need for consistency in its rulings and the binding nature of its previous decisions. The Court also focused on the interpretation of Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution, which requires a minimum of 10 years of regular judicial service for elevation to the High Court.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Precedent | 60% |
| Constitutional Interpretation | 40% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 20% |
| Law | 80% |
Logical Reasoning:
Key Takeaways
- Service rendered as a District & Sessions Judge in a Fast Track Court is not considered as judicial service for the purpose of elevation to the High Court under Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution of India.
- The judgment reinforces the importance of regular judicial service for elevation to the High Court.
- The decision clarifies that ad-hoc appointments in Fast Track Courts do not qualify for seniority or elevation benefits, except for pensionary benefits.
- This judgment will impact the career progression of judicial officers who have served in Fast Track Courts.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this case.
Specific Amendments Analysis
There was no discussion on any specific amendment in the judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that service rendered as a District & Sessions Judge in a Fast Track Court does not qualify as judicial service for the purpose of elevation to the High Court under Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution of India. This ruling reinforces the distinction between regular judicial appointments and ad-hoc appointments in Fast Track Courts, clarifying that only regular judicial service counts towards the eligibility criteria for High Court elevation. The court upheld its previous position in Kum C. Yamini vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 6296 of 2019).
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding that service in Fast Track Courts cannot be considered as judicial service for the purpose of elevation to the High Court under Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution. The Court reaffirmed its earlier stance that such service is only considered for pensionary benefits, not for seniority or elevation purposes. This decision clarifies the criteria for judicial service eligibility for High Court appointments.