In Brief
Three judges appointed to Arunachal Pradesh Fast Track Courts on ad hoc contract basis sought regularisation into the permanent judicial cadre. The High Court rejected their cases under its discretionary authority and conducted a qualifying examination, which all three failed. They challenged this in a writ petition; the Division Bench allowed it, directing absorption. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that ad hoc contract appointments for a temporary scheme confer no right to regularisation. Though Rule 7's proviso allowed the High Court to "consider" their cases, this meant only consideration, not mandatory absorption. As custodian of judicial standards under the Constitution, the High Court properly found them unfit. Failure in the examination further confirmed this assessment. The State's recommendation could not override the High Court's constitutional authority.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.