No bias shown in removal of fast-track court judges

The Gujarat high court on Wednesday rejected the application filed by former fast-track judges alleging discrimination in the discontinuation of their services.However, allowing the application of 12 judges, the high court has asked the administrative wing to reconsider their case for extension of service.The services of 72 judges were terminated by six separate orders for several reasons. The affected judges then moved the Gujarat high court challenging the dismissal of service. The former judges had alleged that the service of direct recruits from the Bar was terminated, while those who were appointed as judges by way of promotion were spared.The judges who were promoted as fast-track court judges, have been retained and their services are being extended from year to year and their quota has been increased by terminating the service of direct recruits, the application said.Replying to the allegation, the Gujarat high court and the state government said that the judges were guided by the scheme of fast-track courts as sponsored by the Centre for elimination of arrears.Under the said scheme, framed by the Supreme Court, the high court is required to periodically review the functioning of each of the fast-track court judges through a specially constituted committee.Since 2006, different committees have been reviewing the cases and based on their reports and other materials on record, the high court has been passing orders in this regard from time to time.
In case of those judicial officers whose continuance in service were not found to be desirable, the same were discontinued.The court agreed with the state's reply and rejected the petition filed by the judges except 12 of them. These are KR Vora, BM Trivedi, SA Shaikh, Nirmal Solanki, RB Bhatt, AN Mehta, KJ Trivedi, YH Upadhyay, MT Dhanak, PG Gokani, JH Singh and CH Shukla. The court, while hearing their case, said, “From the record of the aforesaid 12 officers, prima facie, it appears that the decision of the administrative side of the court is not based on record and seems illogical.”The court said that their cases require reconsideration.The court said that nothing adverse was brought on record to suggest that the 12 officers are no longer useful to the general administration.