The High Court started monitoring the fodder scam cases to bring justice to the accused in 1996.The Government of India set up Fast Track Court to expedite the process of justice delivery system in 2001.The heavy weight accused did not want the verdict to see the light of the day.
Today,the calendar recorded a lapse of 17 years since these fodder scam cases were registered by the premier investigating agency in 1996.So who has overtaken whom?
While you may have your own answer,an inquiry revealed that apart from making repeated attempts to delay the process of justice in the conspiracy angle cases of the multi million rupee fodder scam,some prime accused have been desperately trying to get the judges of atleast four CBI special courts who were deliberating upon these cases, transferred in bulk.
How?The story has its own backdrop.
After Bihar Reorganisation Act was gazetted and Jharkhand was carved out of Bihar in 2000, 90 Superior Judicial Officers (Additional District Judges-ADJs- and District Judges) were transferred from Bihar to Jharkhand. Among them, 62 were promotees and 28 were direct recruits.
On May 10,2001,Jharkhand Governor Prabhat Kumar in consultation with Jharkhand High Court Chief Justice VK Gupta framed Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2001,as per the law.They did their duty in the light of the demand of the time.
This was done mainly to meet the shortage of judges in the new state despite the transfer of the above judges to man the judicial posts in Jharkhand.As such,on May 23,2001,Jharkhand High Court issued an advertisement inviting applications in the prescribed format from the eligible candidates to fill-up the vacancies of the ADJs.
On August 19,2001,written examination was held.In this examination nearly 4,000 candidates appeared.Subsequently,on September 20 of the same year, a list of successful candidates was made public.All of them were asked to appear for oral interview. The list contained names of candidates upto merit serial number 134.
Then,out of the candidates who figured in this list, 17 candidates were appointed as ADJs.Then, 10 more candidates from serial number 18 to 27 of the same list were appointed as Fast Track Court(FTC) Judges.Not the least, in August, 2002, 15 more FTC Judges were appointed from the Bar vide Notification dated August 12,2002.
This was considered as “illegal” on several grounds.
One,the number of candidates called for the interview was much higher than the legally recognized ratio.
Two,upon issuance of their appointment letters,the selection process pursuant to the advertisement dated May 23,2001,should have come to an end,but 10 candidates from serial number 18 to 27 of the above list were appointed as FTC judges.No such panel was ever published by the respondents therein.
Three, the court’s advertisement did not disclose as to how many posts in the regular cadre of ADJs were sought to be filled.
Four, the number of vacancies was not mentioned.Result?
A group of 30 Judicial officers filed a writ petition in the Jharkhand High Court in 2009.In their petition(WPS2853/09),they submitted that they were adversely affected by these “illegal” appointments.They argued that their avenues of promotion and financial benefits accruing out of it were blocked by these “illegal”appointments.
Their petition said that the Full Court of the High Court in the meeting held on October 18,2001 had recommended the names of only 17 candidates for regular appointments as ADJs in FTCs.
Stating that FTCs were constituted in the State of Jharkhand vide Notification dated November 29,2001,their petition claimed that even before the creation of the FTCs, 10 names were recommended in October, 2001 for making appointments against non-existent posts.
Also their petition informed the court that on May 23,2001,when advertisement was issued, Fast Track Courts Scheme 2 (2002) 5 SCC 1 7Page 8,was not in vogue.
” Some of those appointed as ADJs, FTCs, were working as Assistant Public Prosecutors in terms of Section 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,’the Code’). They could not have been appointed as ADJs as they were not advocates within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (a) of the Advocates Act and they cannot be said to have fulfilled the mandatory eligibility criteria of having experience of more than 7 years at the Bar. While deciding eligibility criteria, Rule 9 (a) of the Rules of 2001 was breached. The candidates who were not above the age of 35 years on the last day of January of the preceding year in which the examination was held were selected”,their petition said.
Responding to these judicial officers’ petition,Jharkhand High Court quashed the notifications appointing these judges.The division Bench comprising Chief Justice Bhagwati Prasad and Justice DN Patel in their judgement observed that these notifications were not” in accordance with the law.”
With the Bench’s judgment going against the High Court’s own decision,setting a first of its kind record in the history of Indian Judiciary,as well as these ADJs and District Judges,the judicial battle reached the top court of the country.
After hearing the petitions of both the ADJs-District Judges and the Judicial officers, the Supreme Court disposed off the case(Civil Appeal-6647/12) admitting that these appointments were not in accordance with the spirit of the law.
”In the ultimate analysis we are of the view that the appointments made on 02/02/2002 and 12/08/2002 are irregular, made in ignorance of settled principles underlying service law, in an anxiety to comply with the desire expressed by the Law Ministry and to set up FTCs to deal with the problem of pendency of cases”,noted the division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justice Aftab Alam and Justice Ranjana Prakash Desai.
However,in view of a judgment of the Supreme Court,their order provided relief to the dismissed ADJs.
”We direct the state of Jharkhand and the High Court of Jharkhand to comply with the directions to appoint the appellants in the regular cadre —in the manners laid down in Brij Mohan Lal II case with a period of six months from the day of receipt of this order by it”,said the judgement passed by the SC’s Bench on September 19,2012.
In the light of this Supreme Court’s judgement,Jharkhand High Court had to abide by it before March 19.So within the time frame,it held the exam inviting these ADJs –District Judges to appear in it,got their copies examined,declared all of them passed and recommended to the state government for their appointment and its notification.
Every informed person in the judicial circle of this state knew this.By implication,it meant that once the appointment of these ADJs is notified by the state’s personnel department,they can immediately be posted in the districts.
In Ranchi,nine fodder scam cases were in different stages of trial in as many CBI courts.Among them were five conspiracy angle cases involving heavy weight politicians including two former Bihar CMs Lalu Prasad Yadav and Jagannath Mishra.
Here lies the intervention of the fodder scam’s prime accused.He was learnt to be highly connected.In the judicial circle,he could dribble and handle these cases if he managed to get some of his choicest ADJs-District Judges posted in the CBI courts by getting the present judges who were about to come up with verdicts in the conspiracy angle cases,transferred.Right?
While the answer is any body’s guess,this prime accused was said to be apprehensive that the judgement can go against him.So perhaps he recently rang up two IAS officers.These IAS officers held high posts in the state government under the President’s Rule.
The Prime accused is learnt to have persuaded them to get the appointment of these ADJs notified.The personnel department obliged him and the notification of the appointment of these judges was issued.They were :
1.Brajesh Kumar Gautam.2.Deepak Nath Tiwary.3Sanjay Kumar Chandhyari.4.Nalin Kumar.5.Mahesh Chandra Verma.6.Pradeep Kumar Choubey.7.Ajit Kumar.8.Kumar Kamal.9.Ram Babu Gupta.10.Sunil Kumar Singh.11.Ashutosh Dubey.12.Pradeep Kumar.13.Rizwan Ahmed.14.Smt babita Prasad.15.Sandip Sharma.16.Ashish Saxena.17.ram Bacchan Singh.18.Alok Kumar Dubey.19.Sachindra Kumar Pandey.20.Ramesh Kumar Srivastava.21.Rajesh Kumar Pandey 22.Raghuvar Dayal.
Now,a million dollar question is:will some of these ADJs-District judges-be posted in these CBI courts as per the game plan of the said prime accused.Only the time will tell.
