Delhi HC Issues Guidelines For Grading Of Judicial Officers By Appraisal Evaluation Authorities [Read Judgment]

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed a petition filed by a judicial officer challenging the criteria adopted by the Delhi High Court for promotion to posts of District and Sessions Judges as being non-transparent.In doing so, the Bench comprising Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Justice Sunil Gaur also issued certain guidelines to be kept in mind by appraisal evaluation authorities for grading judicial officers.The petitioner’s averments The Court was hearing a petition filed by Additional District and Sessions judge Sujata Kohli, who was aggrieved by the Delhi High Court by-passing her and granting promotions to her juniors to the post of District and Sessions Judge.Ms. Kohli, who joined the Delhi Higher Judicial Services in 2002, had alleged that during her tenure, the High Court had changed the criteria for promotion several times, without intimating the same to judicial officers.She had now challenged a resolution passed by the High Court in April, 2009 (as amended in January 2010 and January, 2011), requiring every eligible officer to have been graded 'A' grade in the annual confidential reports (ACRs) for the previous five years, as on the date when the consideration for filling the post is to take place.The petitioner had been assessed "B+" (Good) in her ACRs for last several years, but in recognition of her high disposal rate, the Court had granted her ‘super time scale’ in December last year.Being aggrieved by the denial of promotion, which was given to her juniors, she had then approached the Delhi High Court for relief. She had not only taken objection to the amendments being introduced without informing the judicial officers, but also the nature of the criteria, asserting that due weightage had not been given to her seniority. The criteria was further challenged as being opaque and lacking transparencyRejecting her submissions, the High Court, at the outset, took note of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Sah, wherein the Apex Court had emphasized on the primacy of the High Court’s power to make binding recommendations for appointment of District Judges.Administrative criteria not arbitrary The Court then went on to assert that Ms. Kohli’s allegation of being kept in the dark about the amendments to the process was not justified. It noted that before 2008-09, there was no criteria, which meant that the High Court more or less had the absolute discretion to select and appoint anyone, on the basis of seniority, or merit. This “no norm” period was sought to be rectified by structuring the discretion, and insisting that the concerned officers ought to score certain threshold gradings in their ACRs to be eligible for consideration.This administrative criteria, it observed, per se cannot be characterized as arbitrary, given the prevailing “no norm” or “no rule” period. As for the need for A grade in ACRs, it further explained, “Though not a matter of record, it is a fact that around that time, the existing one District court‟s territorial jurisdiction for the whole of Delhi was re-organized; nine District Courts were created, with resultant distribution of jurisdiction. That has now been further re-organized. The consequent need to fill nine posts was felt. The committee, which reported to the Full Court on 14.12.2009, took into account the identity of pay scales of District Judges and equivalent grade All India Service (IAS) officers and felt that since the former had to cross a threshold bar of five “Very good” ACR gradings for five years, preceding the date of consideration (for higher positions), a similar approach could be adopted.”In such circumstances, it observed that Ms. Kohli could not have been expected to have been informed of introduction of a higher threshold, adding, “A judicial officer – like any other public employee or official joins the service, hoping to make a difference, in terms of dealing with the workload, quality of output (i.e. the judgments delivered) and also the cases assigned to her. In a sense, service in the judicial department (though a public service) is a mission, given the solemn nature of judging. If this is the assumption on which every judge, at every level is appointed to the judicial system, the argument that if one is made aware that a higher threshold of performance is expected, she or he would work better (or have worked better) cannot be countenanced.”All judges are expected to perform at their optimum levelsDriving home the point, the Court further emphasised on the need for all judges to perform at their optimum levels regardless of being informed of any administrative criteria. It observed,“All judges – District Judges being no exception – are expected to perform at their optimum levels, given the exploding dockets, which they have to handle. The primary role of anyone, when appointed as a judge is to perform as a judge, to the best of her ability and competence. An incumbent cannot be heard to say that her judicial ...

Delhi HC Issues Guidelines For Grading Of Judicial Officers By Appraisal Evaluation Authorities [Read Judgment]

Apoorva Mandhani

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Delhi HC Issues Guidelines For Grading Of Judicial Officers By Appraisal Evaluation Authorities [Read Judgment]

Apoorva Mandhani

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers