In Brief
The Gauhati High Court challenged a Division Bench order that directed regularisation of three ad hoc Additional Sessions Judges appointed to temporary Fast Track Courts. The respondents had sought absorption into the regular Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service under Rule 7's proviso. The Supreme Court held that ad hoc temporary appointments do not confer automatic rights to regularisation. Though Rule 7's proviso permits consideration of their cases, it does not mandate absorption. Under Articles 233-235, the High Court has constitutional authority over judicial appointments and may reject absorption if candidates lack fitness, as evidenced by their failure to qualify the prescribed examination. The appeal was allowed."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.