- (1.) Leave granted in the all the above SLPs..
(2.) The Writ Petition being CWP No. 5740 of 2001 titled Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India and Ors. was filed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of quo warranto and prohibition, requiring the respondents to stop the scheme and policy of appointment of the retired District and Sessions Judges as ad hoc Judges of the Fast Track Courts (hereinafter referred to as the 'FTCs') in the State Judicial Services. It was also prayed in that petition that in order to maintain the standards of judicial system, the scheme of appointing the retired Judges, as opposed to the regular appointment of Judges to the posts of District and Sessions Judges from the members of the Bar or from the lower judiciary, should be given up. The principal submission made in the writ petition was that the constitutional scheme contained under Articles 233 to 235 read with Articles 308 and 309 of the Constitution do not contemplate and permit appointment of retired judges as ad hoc District and Sessions Judges. Even otherwise, there is no constitutional provision which empowers the authorities concerned to make such appointments. The purpose of this petition obviously was to ensure that only the members of the Bar are appointed by direct recruitment to the post of ad hoc District and Sessions Judges.
(3.) A writ petition being Writ Petition No.8903 of 2001 titled Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh v. Union of India also came to be filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad praying that the Court may issue appropriate order, writ or direction declaring that constitution of the FTCs and 32 presiding officers in the State of Andhra Pradesh and the G.O.M. Nos. 38 Law (LA & J. Courts.C) Department, dated 27th March, 2001 and G.O. Rt. No. 412, Law (LA & J. SC.F) Department dated 27th March, 2001 was unconstitutional and consequently should be set aside.;