MADHUMITA DAS Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this Writ Petition, the petitioners have challenged the selection made for recruitment of Ad hoc Additional District Judges under the Orissa Judicial Service (Special Scheme) Rules, 2001 in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the High Court of Judicature, Orissa, Cuttack being Advertisement No. 1 of 2003 as contained in Annexure -1. The prayer made in the Writ Petition is reproduced as under: 'Prayer The petitioners therefore pray that your Lordships graciously be pleased to admit the Writ Application and issue a Rule Nisi to the opposite parties to show cause as to : (a) Why the selection violating stipulation of Annexure -1 will not be declared as illegal and void; (b) Why the opposite parties will not be directed to select and appoint as per advertisement vide Annexure -1 and to remove disqualified candidates from service i.e., opposite party Nos. 4 to 18. (c) Why the opposite parties will not be directed to appoint the petitioners as they have qualified in written and viva voce and to stop/set aside appointment of disqualified persons having less than 50% in written test and; (d) Why the opposite parties will not be directed to reserve for women as the vacancies are more than three;' - - - -

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the Eleventh Finance Commission allocated Rs. 502.90 crores under Article 275 of the Constitution of India for the purpose of setting up of 1734 Courts in various States in India to deal with long pending cases particularly, Sessions Cases. As allocation of funds was made by the Finance Commission stipulating time -bound utilization i.e., within a period of five years, various State Governments were required to take necessary steps to establish the aforesaid Courts in their respective States. It appears that the Finance Commission suggested that the States may consider re -employment of the retired Judges for a limited period for disposal of pending cases. Challenge was made to the Scheme known as the 'Fast Track' Court in different High Courts primarily on the ground that there was no constitutional sanction for employment of retired Judges and effective guidelines were not in operation. Infrastructural facilities to make the scheme functional were not available. A plea was also raised therein that instead of retired judicial officers, eligible members of the bar should be considered for appointment.

(3.) THE third preference shall be given to the 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 Service.