KUM C. YAMINI versus THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR. on 14 August 2019

[2019] 10 S.C.R. 595

KUM C. YAMINI

v.

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR.

(Civil Appeal No. 6296 of 2019)

AUGUST 14, 2019

[S. A. BOBDE, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]

Judiciary: Fast Track Court – Ad hoc District Judges –Selection to the post of District Judges in regular cadre from adhocFast Track Court District Judges – Claim for seniority based onadhoc appointment – Appellant was appointed to a Fast Track Court(FTC) as an ad hoc District Judge in 2003 – On 28.5.2004, thesecond respondent-High Court issued notification invitingapplications for regular appointments to the posts of District Judgein the Higher Judicial Service – A set of ad hoc District Judgesappointed to the FTCs filed writ petition questioning the notificationand praying for absorption against regular vacancies – High Courtdismissed the writ petition – On appeal, the Supreme Court whiledeclining to grant relief of absorption directed that the direct recruitsto FTCs who opted for regularization shall be subjected to writtenexamination and interview for being entitled to be appointed to theregular cadre of the Higher Judicial Services of the respective States– In compliance of these directions, the second respondent-HighCourt issued notification inviting applications, to fill up the postsof District Judges in regular cadre from the working/former ad hocFTC District Judges – Appellants responded to the said notificationand was selected and appointed by G.O. MS No. 68 dated 2.7.2013– Appellant availed the benefit of such appointment and completedprobation of two years – Nearby four years of her appointment,she filed writ petition questioning G.O. MS No. 68 dated 2.7.2013and claiming seniority from date of her initial appointment as adhocDistrict Judge – High Court rejected her claim – Hence instantappeal – Held: The appointments which came to be made forselecting District Judges for FTCs sanctioned under the 11[th] FinanceScheme are totally different and distinct, compared to appointmentswhich are to be made for regular vacant posts of District Judges –Merely on the ground that they were selected by following the same

595

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aprocedure akin to that of regular selections, is no ground to considertheir claim for grant of seniority from the date of initial appointment– When their claim for regularisation/absorption and challenge tonotification issued in the year 2004 for making selections to thevacant regular posts of District Judges was rejected, the appellantshave no basis to claim seniority from the date of initial appointmentB– In any event, having applied in response to the notification issuedby the High Court in 2013 after availing the benefit of appointment,it is not open to the appellants to question the conditions imposedin the order which is in conformity with rules – Undisputedly,appellant was appointed as ad hoc District Judges to preside overCthe FTCs only – Initially when she was not appointed to a post orcategory of posts, forming part of cadre strength in such category,appellant cannot claim any seniority over the persons regularlyappointed in the category of posts forming part of cadre strength –Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service Special Rules for AdHoc Appointments, 2001 – rr.1, 2, 7 – Estoppel.D

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

Conclusion

Disposing of the appeals, the Court

HELD : 1. When the Fast Track Courts were establishedin the State of Andhra Pradesh out of the grants made availableby the 11[th] Finance Commission, for making appointments toEpreside over such courts, a separate set of rules, namely, AndhraPradesh State Higher Judicial Service Special Rules for Ad HocAppointments, 2001 were issued. The appellant was initiallyappointed as per the said Rules. Rule 1 of the said Rules dealtwith the constitution of service and Rule 7 laid down the termsand conditions of the appointment. Rule 7(1)(B) states that aFperson appointed under Rule 2(i) shall not be regarded as amember of permanent cadre covered under Rule 2 of SpecialRules and is not entitled to any preferential right to any otherappointment. The said Rules are framed only for the purpose ofselecting District Judges on ad hoc posts for presiding over FastGTrack Courts. The Fast Track Courts were established initiallyfor a limited period of five years. All these selections which weremade on ad hoc basis, are not for any posts in the regular cadre ofA.P. Higher Judicial Service. [Para 11] [604-B-E]

2. The claim of the appellants that they were appointed asad hoc District Judges by following the procedure which is similarto the procedure for appointments to the sanctioned posts in theregular cadre, is no ground to accede to their request to reckontheir seniority in the permanent cadre of District Judges, fromtheir initial appointment as the District Judges for the Fast TrackCourts. The appointments which came to be made for selectingDistrict Judges for Fast Track Courts sanctioned under the 11[th]Finance Scheme are totally different and distinct, compared toappointments which are to be made for regular vacant posts ofDistrict Judges covered under A.P. Higher Judicial Service. If aperson is not appointed to any post in the cadre, such personcannot claim any seniority over the persons who are appointed invacant posts in the cadre. The Fast Track Courts which weresanctioned initially for five years from the grants of 11[th] FinanceCommission, were continued in some States beyond such periodwith the assistance, from States and such Fast Track Courts werediscontinued in some other States. Merely on the ground thatthey were selected by following the same procedure akin to thatof regular selections, is no ground to consider their claim forgrant of seniority from the date of initial appointment.Undisputedly, appellant was appointed as ad hoc District Judgesto preside over the Fast Track Courts only. Initially when shewas not appointed to a post or category of posts, forming part ofcadre strength in such category, appellant cannot claim anyseniority over the persons regularly appointed in the category ofposts forming part of cadre strength. There is yet another groundto reject the claim of the appellant. Though the appellant claimsseniority over the persons who are appointed in regular vacantposts forming part of cadre strength but they are not even madeparties. On this ground also, the claim of the appellants deservesrejection. [Para 13] [605-C-F; H; 606-A-B]

3. The claim of seniority will depend upon several factors,nature of appointment, rules as per which the appointments aremade and when appointments are made, were such appointmentsto the cadre posts or not etc. When the appellants were notappointed to any regular posts in the A.P. Judicial Service, AB

C

D

EF

G

Aappellants cannot claim seniority based on their ad hocappointments to preside over Fast Track Courts. [Para 14][606-E-F]

V. Venkata Prasad & Ors. v. High Court of AndhraPradesh & Ors. (2016) 11 SCC 656 : [2016] 3 SCRB834 ; Mahesh Chandra Verma v. State of Jharkhand &Ors. (2018) 7 SCC 270 : [2018] 5 SCR 719 – reliedon.

Brij Mohan Lal (2) v. Union of India & Ors. (2012) 6SCC 502 : [2012] 5 SCR 305 ; Rudra Kumar Sain &COrs. v. Union of India & Ors. (2000) 8 SCC 25 : [2000]2 Suppl. SCR 573 ; Brij Mohan Lal (1) v. Union ofIndia & Ors. (2002) 5 SCC 1 : [2002] 3 SCR 810 ;Debabrata Dash & Anr. v. Jatindra Prasad Das & Ors.(2013) 3 SCC 658 : [2013] 2 SCR 331 – heldinapplicable.

D

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6296Fof 2019.

From the Judgment and Order dated 17.04.2017 by the High Courtof Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State ofAndhra Pradesh in writ Petition No. 13022 of 2017.

With

G

Civil Appeal Nos. 6297, 6298 and 6299 of 2019.

Ms. Kum. C. Yamini (Appellant-in-person).

R. Venkataramani, Sr. Adv., Venkateswara Rao Anumolu,Chandra Mohan A., Sridhar Potaraju, Ms. Shiwani Tushir, Ms. ShwethaHParihar, Ms. G Ushasri, Advs. for the Appellant.

G. N. Reddy, T. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, Mrs. Sujatha Bagadhi,Ms. Uttara Babbar, Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Manan Bansal, S. UdayaKumar Sagar, Ms. Bina Madhavan, Ms. Swati Bhardwaj, TanmayaAgarwal, Advs. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Relief claimed in these matters is same, as such they are heardtogether and disposed of by this common judgment and order. For thepurpose of disposal, we refer to the facts stated in the civil appeal arisingout of S.L.P.(C)No.20990 of 2017.

3. This civil appeal is filed, aggrieved by the impugned judgmentand final order dated 17.04.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicatureat Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradeshwhereby writ petition filed by the appellant in Writ Petition No.13022 of2017 was dismissed. In the writ petition, appellant has questionedparagraph nos.5 and 6 of G.O.MS. No.68 dated 02.07.2013 of Law (LA& J-SC.F) Department as unconstitutional and illegal.

4. The appellant was appointed to a Fast Track Court, as an adhoc District Judge in the year 2003. The appellant was practising as anadvocate at the relevant time, and the appointment was made pursuantto selections made for appointment to the post of ad hoc District Judges.Pursuant to her selection to preside over a Fast Track Court, she joinedduty on 25.10.2003. On 28.05.2004, the second respondent-High Courtissued notification, inviting applications for regular appointments to theposts of District & Sessions Judges in the A.P. Higher Judicial Service.A set of ad hoc District Judges appointed to the Fast Track Courts filedwrit petition in W.P.No.11273 of 2004 questioning such notification. Inthe aforesaid writ petition all the ad hoc District Judges who wereselected to preside over the Fast Track Courts, prayed for absorptionagainst regular vacancies. The writ petition was dismissed by the HighCourt by order dated 13.07.2004. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment,a Special Leave Petition (C)No.17338 of 2004 was filed by the ad hocDistrict Judges. While granting leave, this Court, by interim order dated09.03.2006 passed in Civil Appeal No.1276 of 2005, has observed thatany appointments that would be made in regular selections, will be subject A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ato the result of the civil appeal. Subsequently, the above said civil appealwas disposed of along with a batch of matters, which were decided on19.04.2012 which is reported as Brij Mohan Lal (2) v. Union of India& Ors.[1]. While considering the validity of notification dated 28.05.2004,which was issued for making appointments to the posts of District &Sessions Judges and the claim of absorption made by the ad hoc DistrictBJudges, who are appointed to preside over Fast Track Courts, this Courtin paragraph 175 has observed as under :

“175. The petitioners from the State of Andhra Pradesh havealso prayed for identical relief claiming that the advertisementdated 28-5-2004 issued for filling up the vacancies in the regularCcadre should be quashed and not processed any further and thepetitioners instead should be absorbed against those vacancies.In view of the above discussion, we find no merit even in thesesubmissions.”

5. In the aforesaid judgment, while considering their claim forDabsorption in the regular cadre, while declining to grant the relief ofabsorption certain directions were issued as contained in paragraph 207.9.The directions issued in the aforesaid paragraph read as under :

“207.9. All the persons who have been appointed by way of directrecruitment from the Bar as Judges to preside over FTCs underEthe FTC Scheme shall be entitled to be appointed to the regularcadre of the Higher Judicial Services of the respective Statesonly in the following manner :

(a) The direct recruits to FTCs who opt for regularisationshall take a written examination to be conducted by the HighFCourts of the respective States for determining their suitabilityfor absorption in the regular cadre of Additional District Judges.

(b) Thereafter, they shall be subjected to an interview by aSelection Committee consisting of the Chief Justice and fourseniormost Judges of that High Court.G(c) There shall be 150 marks for the written examinationand 100 marks for the interview. The qualifying marks shallbe 40% aggregate for general candidates and 35% for SC/ST/OBC candidates. The examination and interview shall be held in accordance with the relevant Rules enacted by the Statesfor direct appointment to Higher Judicial Services.

(d) Each of the appointees shall be entitled to one mark peryear of service in the FTCs, which shall form part of theinterview marks.

(e) Needless to point out that this examination and interviewshould be conducted by the respective High Courts keeping inmind that all these applicants have put in a number of years asFTC Judges and have served the country by administeringjustice in accordance with law. The written examination andinterview module, should, thus, be framed keeping in mind thepeculiar facts and circumstances of these cases.

(f) The candidates who qualify the written examination andobtain consolidated percentage as aforeindicated shall beappointed to the post of Additional District Judge in the regularcadre of the State.

(g) If, for any reason, vacancies are not available in theregular cadre, we hereby direct the State Governments tocreate such additional vacancies as may be necessary keepingin view the number of candidates selected.

(h) All sitting and/or former FTC Judges who were directlyappointed from the Bar and are desirous of taking theexamination and interview for regular appointment shall be givenage relaxation. No application shall be rejected on the groundof age of the applicant being in excess of the prescribed age.”

6. In compliance of directions issued in the judgment in the caseof Brij Mohan Lal (2) v. Union of India & Ors. (supra) as referredabove, the second respondent-High Court has issued notification dated13.08.2012 inviting applications, to fill up the posts of District Judges inregular cadre from the working/former ad hoc Fast Track Court DistrictJudges. All the appellants herein who responded to the aforesaidnotification, were selected and appointed by the Government to the postsof regular District Judges (Entry Level) vide G.O.MS. No.68 dated02.07.2013 issued by Law (LA & J-SC.F) Department. Paragraphs 4,5and 6 of the aforesaid Order read as under :

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A“4. The appointments ordered above will take effect from thedates on which the respective officers assume charge.

5. The probation of the officers will be governed by rule 9 of theA.P. State Judicial Service Rules, 2007, and they will be onprobation for a period of two years from the date of joining dutyas decided by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

B

6. The seniority of the persons appointed to the category of DistrictJudges by direct recruitment as well as recruitment by transfershall be fixed as per the roster prescribed in schedule A appended to the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007.”

C

The appellant availed the benefit of such appointment andcompleted probation of two years from the date of joining duty. Nearlyafter four years of her appointment, she has filed the present writ petition,before the High Court questioning paragraphs 5 and 6 of the notificationdated 02.07.2013, which resulted in the impugned order rejecting claimDof her seniority from the date of her initial appointment as ad hoc DistrictJudge. In the impugned order, the High Court has observed that theappellant very conveniently took up the appointment subject to conditionsand after getting a declaration of successful completion of probation andafter ensuring berth in the judiciary, has chosen to come up with achallenge to the very Government Order by which she was appointed.EFurther, taking note of the rejection of the claim of the appellant andsimilarly placed persons for their absorption and their challenge to thenotification dated 28.05.2004 for selection to the regular cadre of DistrictJudges, the High Court has opined that in view of the rules which governthe appointment to the post of ad hoc District Judge, the appellant is notFentitled to claim seniority from the date of initial appointment.

7. We have heard Kum. C. Yamini, appellant-in-person in civilappeals arising out of S.L.P.(C)Nos.20990 of 2017 and 12535 of 2018;Sri R. Venkataramani, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellantin civil appeal arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.13046 of 2018; Sri SridharGPotaraju, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in civil appealarising out of S.L.P.(C)No.28302 of 2018; and Ms. Uttara Babbar,learned counsel appearing for the then High Court of Judicature atHyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh.

8. Kum. C. Yamini, appellant appearing in person has mainlycontended that when the appellant was appointed to the very same postH

of District Judge in the year 2003 by following the procedure as applicableto the regular appointments and when the appellant was selected andappointed pursuant to the notification issued on 02.07.2013, there is noreason or justification for denying her seniority in the cadre of DistrictJudges from initial date of appointment in the year 2003. She has reliedon a judgment of this Court in the case of Rudra Kumar Sain & Ors.v. Union of India & Ors.[2]. Learned senior counsel Sri R.Venkataramani, by referring to the directions issued by this Court in thecase of Brij Mohan Lal (1) v. Union of India & Ors.[3], has submittedthat, when the appellants were appointed to the post of District Judgesby following the procedure akin to that of regular District Judges, thereis no reason or justification for denying seniority to them from the dateof initial appointment. Learned senior counsel also relied on the judgmentof this Court in the case of Debabrata Dash & Anr. v. Jatindra PrasadDas & Ors.[4] and also the judgment in the case of Brij Mohan Lal (2)v. Union of India & Ors. (supra).

9. On the other hand, learned counsel Ms. Uttara Babbar,appearing for the High Court has submitted that the very appointment ofthe appellants as ad hoc District Judges was only to preside over theFast Track Courts under the special rules framed for recruitment of adhoc Judges. It is submitted that in the very same rules, it is made clearthat they have no claim against regular vacancies. Further it is contendedthat when their claim for absorption is rejected by the High Court andconfirmed by this Court, it is not open for the appellants to claim seniorityfrom the date of initial appointment. It is further submitted that all thepersons who will be affected, in the event of grant of relief as claimedby the appellants are not even made party respondents. Learned counselhas submitted that similar issue i.e. claim of seniority over persons whoare appointed against the substantive posts is considered and rejectedby this Court in the case of V. Venkata Prasad & Ors. v. High Courtof Andhra Pradesh & Ors.[5]. It is submitted that in the aforesaidjudgment Rules 2, 6 and 7 of Andhra Pradesh State Higher JudicialService Special Rules for Ad Hoc Appointments, 2001 were considered.In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has categorically held that 2 (2000) 8 SCC 25

3 (2002) 5 SCC 1

4 (2013) 3 SCC 658

5 (2016) 11 SCC 656

A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Aappointments in respect of Fast Track Courts are ad hoc in nature andno right accrues to such appointees.

10. Having heard the appellant appearing in person and learnedsenior counsel appearing for the appellant in Civil Appeal arising out ofS.L.P(C) No.13046 of 2018 and other counsels, we have perused theBwritten submissions and other material placed on record.

11. When the Fast Track Courts were established in the State ofAndhra Pradesh out of the grants made available by the 11[th] FinanceCommission, for making appointments to preside over such courts, aseparate set of rules, namely, Andhra Pradesh State Higher JudicialCService Special Rules for Ad Hoc Appointments, 2001 were issued.The said rules were framed in exercise of powers conferred by Article233 and the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Theappellant was initially appointed as per the aforesaid Rules. Rule 1 ofthe said Rules deals with the constitution of service and Rule 7 laysdown the terms and conditions of the appointment. Rule 7(1)(B) statesDthat a person appointed under Rule 2(i) shall not be regarded as a memberof permanent cadre covered under Rule 2 of Special Rules and is notentitled to any preferential right to any other appointment. The saidRules are framed only for the purpose of selecting District Judges on adhoc posts for presiding over Fast Track Courts. The Fast Track CourtsEwere established initially for a limited period of five years as per thegrant provided in the 11[th] Finance Commission. All these selectionswhich were made on ad hoc basis, are not for any posts in the regularcadre of A.P. Higher Judicial Service. After the appointment of theappellant in the year 2003, when the second respondent has issuednotification inviting applications for recruitment to the posts in regularFvacancies of District Judges, certain Fast Track Court Judges havequestioned the very notification by claiming absorption in the regularvacancies. Such plea of the appellants was rejected and confirmed bythis Court, in clear terms, while disposing of the matter in Brij MohanLal (2) (supra) para 175. Their challenge to the notification issued inGthe year 2004 for recruitment to the regular cadre posts of District Judgesis also rejected.

12. While rejecting the claim for their absorption and challenge tothe notification issued for the recruitment in the regular cadre posts,certain directions were issued in Brij Mohan Lal (2) (supra) forHconsidering the claims of ad hoc judges appointed to Fast Track Courts

into regular cadre posts. Following the directions only, the secondrespondent has issued notification inviting applications for appointmentsto the regular cadre of District Judges and appellants and others respondedto such notification and totally 12 of them were selected for regularvacancies. In the appointment order dated 02.07.2013 in G.O.MS. No.68issued by Law (LA & J-SC.F) Department, they were put on probationfor a period of two years and after the declaration of successful probationand nearly after four years of appointment, the present claim is madeclaiming seniority from the date of their initial appointment, as ad hocDistrict Judges.

13. The claim of the appellants that they were appointed as adhoc District Judges by following the procedure which is similar to theprocedure for appointments to the sanctioned posts in the regular cadre,is no ground to accede to their request to reckon their seniority in thepermanent cadre of District Judges, from their initial appointment as theDistrict Judges for the Fast Track Courts. The appointments which cameto be made for selecting District Judges for Fast Track Courts sanctionedunder the 11[th] Finance Scheme are totally different and distinct, comparedto appointments which are to be made for regular vacant posts of DistrictJudges covered under A.P. Higher Judicial Service. If a person is notappointed to any post in the cadre, such person cannot claim any seniorityover the persons who are appointed in vacant posts in the cadre. TheFast Track Courts which were sanctioned initially for five years fromthe grants of 11[th] Finance Commission, were continued in some Statesbeyond such period with the assistance, from States and such Fast TrackCourts were discontinued in some other States. Merely on the groundthat they were selected by following the same procedure akin to that ofregular selections, is no ground to consider their claim for grant ofseniority from the date of initial appointment. When their claim forregularisation/absorption and challenge to notification issued in the year2004 for making selections to the vacant regular posts of District Judgesis rejected by the High Court and confirmed by this Court, we are of theview that the appellants have no basis to claim seniority from the date ofinitial appointment. In any event, having applied in response to thenotification issued by the High Court in the year 2013 after availing thebenefit of appointment, it is not open to the appellants to question theconditions imposed in the order which is in conformity with rules.Undisputedly, appellant was appointed as ad hoc District Judges to A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Apreside over the Fast Track Courts only. Initially when she was notappointed to a post or category of posts, forming part of cadre strengthin such category, appellant cannot claim any seniority over the personsregularly appointed in the category of posts forming part of cadre strength.There is yet another ground to reject the claim of the appellant. Thoughthe appellant claims seniority over the persons who are appointed inBregular vacant posts forming part of cadre strength but they are noteven made parties. On this ground also, the claim of the appellantsdeserves rejection.

14. We have perused the judgment relied on by the appellant partyin person, in the case of Rudra Kumar Sain & Ors. v. Union of IndiaC& Ors. (supra). In the aforesaid case, issue relates to claim of senioritybetween direct recruits and promotees. Learned senior counsel SriVenkataramani, has also relied on the judgments of this Court in thecase of Brij Mohan Lal (1) v. Union of India & Ors. (supra); in thecase of Debabrata Dash & Anr. v. Jatindra Prasad Das & Ors.D(supra); in the case of V. Venkata Prasad & Ors. v. High Court ofAndhra Pradesh & Ors. (supra) and in the case of Brij Mohan Lal(2) v. Union of India & Ors. (supra). We have looked into the judgmentsreferred above by the learned senior counsel Sri Venkataramani and theparty in person. Having regard to issue involved in the present appeals,we are of the view that the ratio decided in the aforesaid cases wouldEnot render any assistance in support of their claim in these cases. Theclaim of seniority will depend upon several factors, nature of appointment,rules as per which the appointments are made and when appointmentsare made, were such appointments to the cadre posts or not etc. Whenthe appellants were not appointed to any regular posts in the A.P. JudicialFService, appellants cannot claim seniority based on their ad hocappointments to preside over Fast Track Courts. We are of the viewthat the ratio decided in the said judgments relied on by the appellantswould not render any assistance in support of their case.

15. On the other hand, the judgment in the case of V. VenkataGPrasad & Ors. v. High Court of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. (supra),this Court has, in clear terms, while considering A.P. State Higher JudicialService Special Rules for Ad Hoc Appointments, 2001 held that suchappointments in respect of Fast Track Courts are ad hoc in nature andno right accrues to such appointees. The aforesaid view of this Court H

clearly supports the case of the respondents. Paragraph 25 of the saidcase which is relevant for the purpose of these cases reads as under :

“25. From the aforesaid two authorities, it is quite clear that theappointments in respect of Fast Track Courts are ad hoc in natureand no right is to accrue to such recruits promoted/posted on adhoc basis from the lower judiciary for the regular promotion onthe basis of such appointment. It has been categorically statedthat FTC Judges were appointed under a separate set of rulesthan the rules governing the regular appointment in the State HigherJudicial Services.”

16. In the civil appeal arising out of S.L.P.(C)No.28302 of 2018,learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants be atleast given the benefit of counting the service rendered by them in FastTrack Courts for pensionary and other benefits. In support of his claim,learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in MaheshChandra Verma v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.[6] wherein this Courthas considered the very same issue and held that the service renderedas Fast Track Court Judges is to be counted for their length of service,for the purpose of determining their pension and other retiral benefits.

17. We have perused the aforesaid judgment and we are inagreement with the view taken by a two Judge Bench of this Court.Resultantly, while rejecting their claim for grant of seniority from thedate of their initial appointment as Fast Track Court District Judges andother reliefs, we direct that the appellants and all others who are similarlyplaced are to be given benefit of counting their service rendered as FastTrack Judges, for the purpose of pensionary and other retiral benefits.With the above directions and observations the civil appeals are disposedof with no order as to costs.

Devika Gujral

Appeals disposed of.

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H