Text Practice Mode

Ravi kant Steno Transcription-08

created Nov 30th 2022, 10:01 by RaviKantSteno



602 words
17 completed
After considering all the submissions, this Court in its decision dated 21st March 2002 in All India Judges Association and others v. Union of India and others passed some directions. We are presently concerned with the observations made in paragraphs 24 to 29 in which reference was made to the 85th Report of the Standing Committee of Parliament recommending that there should be increase in the number of Judges.  Said Committee had noted the Judges to Population ratio and in tune with 120th Report of the Law Commission, recommendations were made to increase the Judges strength to 50 Judges per 10 lakh people in the first instance.
    Recommendations made by Justice Shetty Commission were also considered adn recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service in the cadre of District Judges was also subject-matter of directions. Soon thereafer, in its decision rendered in Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India and others this court had an occasion to consider the issue relating to Fast Track Courts. The 11th Finance Commission had allocated Rs. 502 crores for the purpose of setting up a lot of courts in various States to deal with long pending cases particularly session cases. On the basis of said recommendations a note was prepared by the Department of Justice Government of India to set up Fast Track Courts. Challenges were raised in some High Courts to the constitution of such Fast Track Courts and the matters were dealt by this Court in Transfer Petitions.
    In the State of Rajasthan the matters relating to Constitution of Courts and Jurisdiction of Courts were dealt with by the Rajasthan Civil Courts Ordinance, 1950 which consolidated and amended the law relating to Civil Courts in the State. Clause 6 of said Ordinance dealt with Classes of Courts; Clause 8 dealt with the appointment of Additional Judges. In exercise of powers conferred by Article 233 and the proviso to Article 309 of the constitution of India, the Governor of Rajasthan made the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Rules 1969 in consultation with the High Court 10 in respect of the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service for making appointments postings and promotions to the cadre of District Judges, and to provide for other ancillary matters.  
    However, appointments in excess of the strength indicated in Schedule I to 1969 Rules were made on various occasions. By Notifications issued under the provisions of the Ordinance and under Rule 6(2) of 1969 Rules 40 Additional District and Sessions Courts were set up in the State for Fast Track disposal of cases pending before the District Judges. By another Notification 13 more Additional District and sessions Courts were set up under the aforesaid provisions of the Ordinance and 1969 Rules for Fast Track disposal of cases pending before the District Courts. Further 30 Additional District and Sessions Courts were again set up in pursuance of aforesaid powers for Fast Track disposal of cases pending before the District Judges. Thus 83 Courts were created which are commonly known as Fast Track Courts and officers from the cadre of Senior Civil Judges were promoted under Rule 22 of 1969 Rules to man these Fast Track Courts. It may be mentioned that though the decision of this Court in Brij Mohan Lal had indicated three sources from which the candidates could be appointed to man the Fast Track Courts, in the State of Rajasthan candidates were drawn only from one source namely through ad-hoc or officiating promotions to the persons from the feeder cadre viz. Senior Civil Judges Cadre. There was no appointment of any retired Judges or by way of recruitment from the Bar.

saving score / loading statistics ...