/2023 INSC 0112/
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
   CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
      WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S).49 OF 2022
C. YAMINI & OTHERS  ….PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
THE HIGH COURT FOR THE 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
AT AMRAVATHI & ANR.  ...RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. The   petitioners   are   members   of   the   Andhra   Pradesh   State
Judicial Service who have approached this Court under Article 32 of
the Constitution with the following reliefs:­
(a) Issue   appropriate   writ   or   order   or   direction   to   the
respondent no. 1 to call for the judgments of the petitioners
for   the   elevation   of   judgeship   to   the   High   Court   as   judicial
officer   as   defined   in   Art.   217(2)(a)   of   the   Constitution   of
India; and
(b) Issue   or   pass   any   writ,   direction   or   order,   which   this
Hon’ble Court  may deem  fit and proper under  the facts and
circumstances of the case.   Issue or pass any writ, direction
or  order, which this Hon’ble Court may  deem  fit  and proper
under the facts and circumstances of the case.”
1

2. It   reveals   from   the   counter­affidavit   filed   by   the   respondents
that   the   petitioners   were   appointed   in   the   cadre   of   District   &
Sessions   Judge   on   Ad­hoc   basis   to   preside   over   the   Fast   Track
Courts   under   the   Andhra   Pradesh   State   Higher   Judicial   Service
Special Rules for Adhoc Appointments, 2001 (hereinafter referred to
as the “Rules, 2001”) by order dated 6 th
 October, 2003 and in sequel
thereof,   were   appointed   on   regular   basis   in   the   cadre   of   District   &
Sessions   Judge   under   the   Andhra   Pradesh   State   Judicial   Service
Rules, 2007(hereinafter being referred to as the “Rules 2007”) after
going   through   the   process   of   selection,   by   Order   dated   2 nd
  July,
2013 and there is no break in service of either of the petitioners in
the   judicial   service   rendered   by   them   in   the   cadre   of   District   &
Sessions Judge.
3. The   seniority   list   of   Officers   working   in   respect   of   District   &
Sessions Judge cadre in terms of Rule 13 of the Rules, 2007 came
to   be   notified   by   the   respondents   on   5 th
  January,   2022   and   the
names of the present petitioners find place at serial nos.20, 21, 22
and   23   respectively.     At   the   same   time,   those   officers   who   were
2

junior   to   them   in   seniority   in   the   District   &   Sessions   Judge   cadre
were   placed   at   serial   nos.24,   28,   29,   31   and   34,   while   overlooking
the claim of the petitioners, these officers have been elevated to the
Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.  
4. The grievance of the petitioners is that the service which they
have  rendered  as  a  District  &  Sessions  Judge  Fast  Track on  being
appointed   from   6 th
  October   2003   has   not   been   considered   as   a
judicial   service   for   the   purposes   of   their   elevation   to   the   Bench   of
the   High   Court   as   defined   under   Article   217(2)(a)   of   the
Constitution.
5. Extract   of   the   seniority   list   of   District   &   Sessions   Judge   is
reproduced hereunder:­ 
SENIORITY LIST IN RESPECT OF
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGES
S. No. NAME OF OFFICER
SARVASRI
1­19 XXX    XXX      XXX
20. KUM. C. YAMINI
21.  Y.V.S.B.G. PARDHA SARADHI
22. N. SOLOMON RAJU
23. SMT. A. BHARATHI
24. B. SYAM SUNDER
25­27 XXX    XXX      XXX
28. V. SRINIVAS
29. B.V.L.N. CHAKRAVARTHY
3

30. XXX    XXX      XXX
31. D. VENKATA RAMANA
32­33 XXX    XXX      XXX
34.  V. GOPALAKRISHNA RAO
35­100 XXX    XXX      XXX
6. It   has   been   averred   that   there   were   9   vacancies   in   the   High
Court for elevation from judicial service and the Registry put the list
of 27 eligible officers falling in the zone of consideration in the ratio
of   1:3,   in   order   of   seniority,   who   have   regular   judicial   service   of
minimum   10   years   as   Judge,   which   is   the   requirement   of   Article
217(2)(a)   of   the   Constitution,   were   placed   before   the   collegium,
which   resulted   in   a   situation   that   the   names   of   officers   at   serial
nos.20 to 23, 25 and 26 of the seniority list dated 5 th
 January, 2022
were not considered, as according to the respondents, they have not
completed   10   years   of   regular   judicial   service   and   the   names   of
District & Sessions Judges at serial nos.1, 3, 4, 5, 24 and 27 to 48
were   considered   for   elevation   as   each   of   them   had   completed   10
years of judicial service at the relevant point of time.
7. The question which has been raised in the instant petition at
the   instance   of   the   present   petitioners   has   been   examined   by   this
Court   in   Kum   C.   Yamini   Vs.   The   State   of   Andhra   Pradesh   &
4

Anr. (Civil   Appeal   No.   6296   of   2019   decided   on   14 th
  August,   2019)
wherein the three­Judge Bench of this Court, after examining  their
nature of appointment as a District & Sessions Judge Fast Track on
ad­hoc   basis   under   the   Rules,   2001   and   later   appointed   by   Order
dated 2 nd
 July, 2013 on regular basis and becoming members of the
Rules,   2007   held   that   the   petitioners   are   not   entitled   to   claim
benefit   of   seniority   from   the   date   of   their   initial   appointment   as
District   &   Sessions   Judge   Fast   Track   and   other   consequential
reliefs   prayed   for.     At   the   same   time,   limited   benefit   of   service
rendered as Fast Track Court Judges was granted to them only for
the   purpose   of   pensionary   and   other  retiral   benefits.     The   relevant
part is as under:­
“14.…..The   claim   of   seniority   will   depend   upon   several
factors,   nature   of   appointment,   rules   as   per   which   the
appointments   are   made   and   when   appointments   are   made,
were such appointments to the cadre posts or not etc.  When
the appellants were not appointed to any regular posts in the
A.P.   Judicial   Service,   appellants   cannot   claim   seniority
based   on   their   ad   hoc   appointments   to   preside   over   Fast
Track   Courts.     We   are   of   the   view   that   the   ratio   decided   in
the   said   judgments   relied   on   by   the   appellants   would   not
render any assistance in support of their case.”
“17. We have perused the aforesaid judgment  and we are in
agreement with the view taken by a two Judge Bench of this
Court.     Resultantly,   while   rejecting   their   claim   for   grant   of
seniority   from   the   date   of   their   initial   appointment   as   Fast
5

Track Court District Judges and other reliefs, we direct that
the appellants and all others who are similarly placed are to
be   given   benefit   of   counting   their   service   rendered   as   Fast
Track Judges, for the purpose of pensionary and other retiral
benefits.”
8. Since   the   services   rendered   by   the   petitioners   as   Fast   Track
Court   Judges   have   not   been   recognized   by   this   Court   for   the
purpose of seniority except for pensionary and other retiral benefits,
the plea raised by the petitioners to consider their service rendered
as Fast Track Court Judges as a judicial service for the purpose of
Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution, in light of the judgment of this
Court what being prayed for, is not legally sustainable.
9. Consequently,   the   writ   petition   is   without   substance   and   is
accordingly, dismissed.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
       ……………………….J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
       ……………………….J.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 23, 2023.
  
6

7