Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Judiciary

Ad hoc Period of service not to be considered during elevation: SC

Last Updated on February 27, 2023 by Administrator

The background of the case is that a writ petition was filed by 9 judicial officers from Andhra Pradesh where they sought direction from the Andhra Pradesh High Court, to consider their candidature for the elevation as HC judges.

This petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on Thursday. The list which was made by the High Court did not mention the name of the petitioners’ and the same was done on the ground that the requirement of ten years of service as mentioned in Article 217(2)(a) of the Indian Constitution, was not met by them.

As per the petitioners, their names should be included as the period of service where they had acted as ad hoc judges should be taken into consideration, whereby they will be meeting the criteria as set out in Article 217(2)(a).

These judges were appointed on an ad hoc basis in the cadre of district and session judges, where they presided over the fast-track courts, under the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service Rules, 2007.  As per the seniority list that was released by the Andhra Pradesh High Court, their names were not mentioned therein.  

A bench that was composed of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela Trivedi, refused to accept the claim of the petitioners that they are eligible for the elevation. The same petitioners had earlier in 2019 filed a writ petition in the supreme court for the consideration of their ad hoc period as a period of service, where it was decided that the same will be done only in the case of retirement and pensionary benefits.  

In the case of Kum C. Yamini v. The state of Andhra Pradesh and Anr., the court decided against the petitioners and made it clear that they could not avail of the period of service as they were under the ad hoc appointment. The same case was cited by this bench, and it was decided not to consider this as a period of service. The court was of the view that whatever was being claimed was not legally sustainable, and their petition was dismissed.

Case Title: -  C Yamini and others vs High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi and another

Related Provisions: – Article 217(2)(a) of the Indian Constitution.

Written By – Shianjany Pradhan

Written By

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Related Posts