- (1.) This writ petition dated December 22, 2011 is at the instance of 22 (twenty two) disgruntled members of the West Bengal Judicial Service (hereafter the W.B.J.S.), presented on December 23, 2011. While complaining of perceived step motherly treatment accorded by the administration of this Court to them, the petitioners have prayed for ameliorative relief to restore their seniority thereby enabling them discharge their judicial and administrative functions without any sense of deprivation. It is noted that by the time this Bench had the occasion to consider applications for addition of parties filed in connection with the writ petition on July 15, 2016 and thereafter proceeded with final hearing, the petitioners 1 - 3, 8 and 9 had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation while the petitioner no.10 proceeded on voluntary retirement w.e.f. September 20, 2014. It is also noted that a couple of petitioners and one of the added respondents are now members of the registry of this Court.
(2.) Tracing the genesis of the controversy raised by the petitioners would necessitate walking down memory lane when the Fast Track Court Scheme (hereafter the scheme) was conceived and introduced for clearing backlog of cases in courts, mainly long pending cases in the Sessions Courts and cases of under -trial prisoners, by the Central Government based on the recommendation of the Eleventh Finance Commission. The scheme, envisaging creation of 1734 (seventeen hundred thirty four) Fast Track Courts (hereafter FTCs) in the country with funds to be provided by the Ministry of Finance, was to continue initially for 5 (five) years i.e. till March 31, 2005. It was the primary responsibility of the State Governments to establish the FTCs in consultation with the respective High Courts. However, the scheme viz. the constitution of the FTCs and policy of appointment of its Presiding Officers came to be challenged in the Punjab and Haryana High Court as well as the Andhra Pradesh High Court in writ petitions, primarily on the ground that there was no constitutional sanction for employment of retired judges to man the FTCs and effective guidelines were not in operation. It was also highlighted that infrastructural facilities were not available so as to make the scheme a reality. Several other deficiencies were also pointed out. A plea was raised that instead of retired officers, eligible members of the Bar should be considered for appointment. The Union of India had approached the Supreme Court seeking transfer of such cases and by its order dated August 3, 2001 reported in (2012) 6 SCC 580 (Union of India vs. Brij Mohan Lal), the Supreme Court transferred such cases for consideration by it. By the same order, the Court permitted intervention by other parties who might have filed similar writ petitions in different High Courts. Thereafter, the Court proceeded to hear and dispose of the same by a common judgment dated May 6, 2002 reported in (2002) 5 SCC 1 (Brij Mohan Lal vs. Union of India). The Court was of the opinion, keeping in view the laudable objects of the scheme, that certain directions for taking care of the initial teething problems highlighted by the parties are necessary and accordingly, issued several directions. A few of the directions, which are considered relevant, are reproduced below: "Directions by the Court 1. The first preference for appointment of judges of the Fast Track Courts is to be given by ad hoc promotions from amongst eligible judicial officers. While giving such promotion, the High Court shall follow the procedures in force in the matter of promotion to such posts in Superior/Higher Judicial Services. 7. After ad hoc promotion of judicial officers to the Fast Track Courts, the consequential vacancies shall be filled up immediately by organizing a special recruitment drive. Steps should be taken in advance to initiate process for selection to fill up these vacancies much before the judicial officers are promoted to the Fast Track Courts, so that vacancies may not be generated at the lower levels of the subordinate judiciary. The High Court and the State Government concerned shall take prompt steps to fill up the consequential as well as existing vacancies in the subordinate courts on priority basis. The State Government concerned shall take necessary decisions within a month from the receipt of the recommendations made by the High Court. 14. No right will be conferred on judicial officers in service for claiming any regular promotion on the basis of his/her appointment on ad hoc basis under the Scheme. The service rendered in Fast Track Courts will be deemed as service rendered in the parent cadre. In case any judicial officer is promoted to higher grade in the parent cadre during his tenure in Fast Track Courts, the service rendered in Fast Track Courts will be deemed to be service in such higher grade."
(3.) Although the cases were treated as closed, the State Governments and the High Courts were directed to submit quarterly status reports for consideration before the Bench to be fixed by the Chief Justice of India. The Court had been monitoring the functioning of the FTCs through the case of Brij Mohan Lal (supra). It was observed that the scheme of the FTCs should not be disbanded all of a sudden and by its order dated March 31, 2005 reported in (2007) 15 SCC 614 (Brij Mohan Lal vs. Union of India), the Court directed the Union of India to continue the FTCs. In compliance therewith, the Central Government accorded its approval for the continuation of the 1562 (fifteen hundred sixty two) FTCs that were operational as on March 31, 2005 for a further period of 5 (five) years, i.e. till March 31, 2010. Quarterly reports, as directed, were filed from time to time regarding the functioning of the FTCs in the entire country. Meanwhile, some writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution were presented before the Court and some special leave petitions were also filed against various judgments of different High Courts. As opposed to the initial writ petitions filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Andhra Pradesh High Court, the petitioners in the two Article 32 writ petitions, inter alia, prayed that the Court should issue appropriate writ or direction to the respondents to extend the scheme for FTCs till March 31, 2015 and to release necessary funds for such purpose. Such writ petitions and the special leave petitions were ultimately disposed of by the Supreme Court by its decision reported in (2012) 6 SCC 502 (Brij Mohan Lal vs. Union of India) with directions issued under Article 142 of the Constitution.;