Settling a seniority issue, the Madras High Court has held that 17 directly recruited District Judges could not be treated as juniors to those elevated from subordinate judiciary.
Dismissing a batch of petitions by 11 serving district judges, a division bench, comprising Justice V. Ramasubramanian and Justice P R Shivakumar, said directly recruited judges could not be made juniors to those elevated from subordinate judicial positions merely because they spent one year in training before assuming charge as district judges.
"A person is deemed to be appointed in service the moment he discharges a duty for the first time, be it during training or probation," the bench said.
The matter relates to a February 1, 2013 memorandum issued by the Special Cell of the High Court through which annual seniority list for district and sessions judges was fixed.
This was challenged by a group of 11 serving judges who were promoted from senior civil judges to additional district judges on ad hoc basis in 2010 to fill vacancies arising out of formation of 49 fast track courts.
In the meantime, seventeen persons were directly recruited as district judges in January, 2011. While the 17 were under training, the services of 11 ad hoc judges were regularised in April 2012 and they moved the court saying they should be given seniority above the 17 direct recruits.
Upholding the seniority list published by the high court, the bench said the contention that direct recruits of 2011 can be said to have been appointed only from April 30, 2012, the date on which they completed the period of training and started discharging the duties as full-fledged district judges cannot hold water.
