Why three ad-hoc Session judges from Arunachal Pradesh are before the Supreme Court

A case in the Supreme Court of India has dug up a few old graves of the very first batch of judicial/executive officers in Arunachal Pradesh. And it pertains to executive appointees being absorbed into judicial posts..On August 8, a Bench comprising Chief Justice TS Thakur and Justices AM Khanwilkar and DY Chandrachud issued notice to Arunachal Pradesh government and three former Session judges (ad-hoc) in an appeal filed by the Gauhati High Court against its own decision..Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria and advocate Sneha Kalita appeared for the Gauhati High Court while advocate Ahanthem Henry appeared for the respondents..The origins of this case can be traced back to the year 2002 when three posts of Additional Deputy Commissioners were created. The ADC’s were also granted powers of an ad-hoc Additional Sessions judge, and the appointments to these three posts (the respondents before the Supreme Court) were made by the Gauhati High Court..The said appointment was extended from time to time. In 2013, the Fast track courts manned by the respondents were converted to a regular court of Additional District and Sessions judge and the services of the three respondents were dispensed with. The State, for its part, suggested that the erstwhile executive officers, who had been acting as judges be absorbed as Additional District Judges, as per their qualification and designation. This was, however, declined by the High Court..The respondents were then asked to appear and clear a written examination for absorption into judicial service. This was in accordance with the mandate of the Supreme Court in the case of Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India. They were later informed that their services had been dispensed with as they had not been able to clear the examination..This was challenged before the High Court by the respondents. The High Court distinguished the case from the case of Brij Mohan Lal on the ground that the respondents were people who had served for almost ten years as judicial officers, and there was no need for them to undergo the exercise again..It, therefore, directed the absorption of the respondents into Arunachal Pradesh Judicial Service. Aggrieved by this order, the Gauhati High Court has appealed against its own decision in the Supreme Court..In the petition, a copy of which is with Bar & Bench, the High Court has assailed its decision to distinguish the Brij Mohan Lal’s case..“…the Hon’ble High Court ought to have considered that this Court in Brij Mohan Lal Case – II specifically directed that the written examination and interview be held in accordance with the relevant Rules enacted by the respective States for direct appointment to higher Judicial Service….…the Hon’ble High Court ought to have considered that the petitioner has conducted the selection as per the direction in Brij Mohan Lal case –II and very much in consonance with the existing Arunachal Pradesh Service Rules, 2006.”.It has further submitted that the respondents were given an opportunity to appear for the exam and qualify in order to be eligible for appointment, but they failed to secure the minimum marks required..“It is submitted that in fact the petitioner has considered the Respondents No. 1 to 3 by giving them opportunity to appear in the exam which they opted for but they failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks and hence their services were dispensed with. Therefore, the Hon’ble High Court erred in finding that the proviso to the Rule 7 of the aforesaid Judicial Services’ Rules 2006 was not followed, for considering the Respondents No. 1 to 3 for their absorption, which is incorrect. However, the Rule 7, says that ‘the High Court may consider for absorption in grade I of service.’ It means that it is optional and not mandatory.”.It has also contended that the High Court erred in considering the Brij Mohan case “in true perspective”, and that the criterion for absorption in regular cadre was to take the written examination which the Respondents did but did not qualify..Interestingly, during the hearing in Supreme Court, one of the Respondents was grilled by Chief Justice Thakur on certain aspects of criminal law and the respondent was unable give satisfactory replies to the CJI’s queries. .The Bench then issued notice in the matter, and agreed to examine the issue in detail.