SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,J. - (1.) The sole question, which arises for consideration in these appeals is whether the services rendered by the appellants/Judicial Officers as Fast Track court Judges is liable to be counted for their pensionary and other benefits, the appellants having joined the regular judicial service thereafter.
(2.) The question of law arising as aforesaid, it is not necessary to delve into the facts of each case. Thus, only the facts which are relevant for the determination of this question are being set out. The Jharkhand State was carved out from the State of Bihar under the Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 on 25.11.2000. Soon thereafter the Jharkhand High Court, respondent No.2, issued an advertisement on 23.5.2001 to fill up the vacancies for the post of Additional District Judges in the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service. The appellants also took part in the recruitment process and post conduct of examination and interview, a select list was prepared of 27 candidates, who were eligible for appointment to the Superior Judicial Service. None of the appellants, however, figured in the final select list. A parallel development was the allocation by the 11th Finance Commission of Rs. 502.90 crores under Article 275 of the Constitution of India, for the establishment of courts described as the Fast Track courts.1,734 courts in various States were envisaged to deal with long-pending cases, specifically, Sessions cases. The funds allocated by the Finance Commission were to be utilized in a time bound schedule of five years, and the State Governments were required to take necessary steps to establish such courts.
(3.) A challenge was laid to this Scheme, known as the Fast Track Courts Scheme, in various High Courts primarily on the ground that there was no constitutional sanction for employment of retired Judges, nor were there effective guidelines in operation. These matters were transferred to the Supreme Court and all these matters were dealt with in the judgment in Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India and Ors., (2002) 5 SCC 1. The Scheme was analysed by the Supreme Court and keeping in mind the laudable objects with which the Fast Track Courts Scheme was set up, the constitution of these courts was upheld but with certain directions. In terms of these directions, the first preference for appointment to these courts was to be given by ad hoc promotions from amongst eligible Judicial Officers, while the second preference was to be given to retired Judges who had good service records. The third preference envisaged was to the members of the Bar for direct appointment to these courts. The fourth direction in this behalf is as under: "4. The third preference shall be given to members of the Bar for direct appointment in these Courts. They should be preferably in the age group of 35-45 years, so that they could aspire to continue against the regular posts if the Fast Track Courts cease to function. The question of their continuance in service shall be reviewed periodically by the High Court based on their performance. They may be absorbed in regular vacancies, if subsequent recruitment takes place and their performance in the Fast Track Courts is found satisfactory. For the initial selection, the High Court shall adopt such methods of selection as are normally followed for selection of members of the Bar as direct recruits to the Superior/Higher Judicial Services.";