Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the establishment of Family Courts and Mahila Courts in Andhra Pradesh, which were intended to be presided over by women judges. Due to a lack of qualified women judges, the High Court requested the state government to create additional posts. The government sanctioned 10 additional posts of District and Sessions Judges, Grade II, exclusively for women candidates. An advertisement was issued, and 261 candidates applied, with 180 participating in the written examination. A panel of candidates was prepared, but the High Court faced challenges regarding the legality of the recruitment process, particularly concerning the reservation policy for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Backward Classes. The High Court concluded that the vacancies for SC and ST candidates could not be de-reserved and that the selection process had not adhered to the rules in force. The petitioners, nine women lawyers selected for appointment, sought directions for their appointment as District and Sessions Judges, Grade II. However, the court found that the selection was contrary to the rules, which did not permit 100% reservation for women. The court also noted that the posts were for District and Sessions Judges, Grade II, and not for Family Court Judges, leading to the conclusion that the petitioners could not be appointed. Despite the petitioners' willingness to accept ex-cadre posts, the court ruled that it could not direct the state government to create such posts, resulting in the dismissal of the writ petition without costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Judicial Appointments - Right to Appointment - Family Courts Act, 1984 - Petitioners claimed a right to appointment based on selection but were found to have no legal entitlement as the selection process violated existing rules regarding reservation and appointment procedures. Held that mere selection does not confer a right to appointment (Paras 8-8). B) Administrative Law - Reservation Policy - Legality of 100% Reservation - A.P. State Higher Judicial Service Rules - The High Court's decision to reserve all posts for women was deemed illegal as it contravened the prescribed reservation policy which allowed only partial reservation. Held that such a reservation is not constitutionally permissible (Paras 6-6). C) Administrative Law - Ex-Cadre Posts - Creation of Ex-Cadre Posts - Family Courts Act, 1984 - The court ruled that appointing petitioners to ex-cadre posts would create positions not sanctioned by the government, thus violating recruitment rules. Held that appointments cannot be made contrary to established rules (Paras 11-11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners had a right to be appointed as District and Sessions Judges, Grade II, and the legality of the recruitment process followed.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition, ruling that the petitioners had no right to appointment as the selection was contrary to the rules in force, particularly regarding the reservation policy. The court also stated that creating ex-cadre posts for the petitioners would violate established recruitment rules.
Law Points
- Judicial appointments
- reservation policy
- Family Courts Act
- 1984
- recruitment rules
- ex-cadre posts
