No Quota For Judicial Officers In District Judge Posts : Supreme Court Issues Guidelines On Seniority In Higher Judicial Service
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled out any special quota/weightage for promotee judges in the posts of District Judges, observing that there is no nationwide pattern of disproportionate representation of direct recruits in the Higher Judicial Service.The Court observed that a perceived feeling of "heartburn" among judicial officers cannot justify the creation of any artificial...
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled out any special quota/weightage for promotee judges in the posts of District Judges, observing that there is no nationwide pattern of disproportionate representation of direct recruits in the Higher Judicial Service.
The Court observed that a perceived feeling of "heartburn" among judicial officers cannot justify the creation of any artificial classification within the cadre Higher Judicial Service(HJS). On the entry into a common cadre from different sources (Regular Promotion, Limited Departmental Competitive Exam and Direct Recruitment) and assignment of seniority as per the annual roster, the incumbents lose their 'birthmark' of the source from which they are recruited.
The Court observed that fixation in the Selection Grade and Super Time Scale within the HJS is based on the merit-cum-seniority within the cadre and cannot depend upon the length of service or performance in the lower rungs of the Judiciary. The service as Civil Judges loses its significance after Regular Promotees and LDCEs advance into the HJS. "The length and performance as a Civil Judge does not constitute an intelligible differentia to classify incumbents in the common cadre of District Judge," observed the 5-judge bench led by the Chief Justice of India.
The Court noted that in-service judicial officers have enough opportunities for advancement as District Judges, especially after the recent judgment in Rejanish, which allowed them to contest for direct recruitment as District Judges. Also, fast track promotions as Civil Judge (Senior Division) are facilitated with the reduction of service period condition.
The Court also observed that individual aspirations are a common incidence of any service, and they cannot guide the seniority rules.
Guidelines on seniority
The Court issued certain guidelines for the filling up of the DJ posts invoking powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
- The seniority of officers within the HJS shall be determined through an annual 4-point roster, filled by all officers appointed in the particular year in the repeating sequence of 2 Regular Promotees, 1 LDCE, and 1 DR.
- Only if the recruitment process is completed within the year after which it was initiated and no other appointments, from any of the three sources, have already taken place in respect of the recruitment initiated for that subsequent year, shall the officers belatedly so appointed be entitled to seniority as per the roster of the year in which recruitment was initiated.
- If the recruitment process is not initiated for vacancies arising in a given year in the same year, the candidate filling such vacancy, in subsequent recruitment, shall be granted seniority within the annual roster of the year in which the recruitment process is finally concluded and appointment is made.
- After the recruitment of DRs and LDCEs is complete for a particular year, the positions falling in their quota that remain unfilled due to lack of suitable candidates shall be filled through RPs, subject to such RPs being placed only on subsequent RP positions in the annual roster; and the vacancies in the subsequent year shall be computed so as to apply the proportion of 50:25:25 to the entire cadre.
- The statutory rules governing the HJS in the respective States, in consultation with the High Courts, shall prescribe the exact modalities of the Annual Roster and how the directions of this judgement shall be implemented.
The Court clarified that these guidelines are not intended to resolve any inter-se dispute. The guidelines are general and mandatory to be incorporated into the regulations governing inter-se seniority of higher judicial services. The guidelines will not reopen any decided issues related to inter-se seniority disputes.
The Court also said that the guidelines are being issued considering the present situation on the date and could be revisited or modified in future
The 5-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi had reserved verdict in the All India Judges Association case on November 4.
The bench was examining the issue whether there should be a quota in the District Judge posts for the promotion of judicial officers who joined the service at the entry level. This is to address the problem of career stagnation faced by officers who join the judicial service at entry-level posts.
What Are The 4 Suggestions Given By The Amicus?
Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, the amicus curiae in the matter, has submitted the following suggestions to ensure adequate representation of promotees in the appointment of district judges across states :
(1) It is thus suggested that for appointment to the post of District Judge (Selection Grade)/ District Judge (Super Time Scale)/ Principal District Judges a quota of 1:1 for Promotee District Judges and Direct Recruit District Judges may be created. The principle of “merit cum seniority” for selection to these posts can then be applied within the said quota;
(2) Alternatively, the zone of consideration for appointment to the post of District Judge (Selection Grade) and District Judge (Super Time-Scale) should comprise of 50% officers from the Direct Recruited District Judges and 50% from Promotee District Judges. Thereafter, the appointment would be made on the recommendation of the respective High Courts, on the basis of “merit cum seniority”. Thus, in the zone of consideration, 50% officers shall be the Senior most Promotee District Judges and 50% officers shall be the senior most Directly Recruited District Judges.
(3) Alternatively, it is suggested that this Hon'ble Court may accept the recommendations of the Shetty Commission and grant weightage to Promotee District Judges for experience in terms of 1 year seniority for every 5 years of judicial service, subject to maximum of 3 years. It is further submitted that these additional years of seniority may be considered as service in the District Judge cadre;
(4) Alternatively, this Hon'ble Court may consider the recommendation made by the Committee of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh which had recommended three separate seniority lists in respect of (a) Promotee District Judge (Regular Promotion) (b) Promotee District Judge (LDCE) (c) Direct Recruit District Judge, in the ratio of their overall cadre strength of 50:25:25 and selection to the higher posts in the cadre of District Judges be made on basis of such seniority list.
What Led To The Reference?
Earlier, the said bench had sought the responses of the High Courts and the State Governments, expressing concerns over the issue. Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, the amicus curiae in case, had highlighted an "anomalous situation" in many States, where Judicial Officers recruited as Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) often do not reach even the level of the Principal District Judge, leave alone reaching the position of the High Court Judge. The amicus stated that this situation often discouraged bright youngsters from joining the judiciary.
While referring to the larger bench, the Court considered the aspect put forward by the amicus, for a proposal to reserve a certain percentage of posts from the cadre of Principal District Judges for the promotion of Judges selected initially from the JMFC Cadre. During the last hearing, Senior Advocate R Basant opposed this proposal, saying that this will deny opportunities to meritorious candidates who wait for direct recruitment as District Judges.
In the reference order, the bench observed that a balance will have to be struck between the competing claims. However, this would involve consideration of some of the earlier orders passed by 3-judge benches.
The reference order observed :
"It cannot be disputed that the judges who were initially appointed as CJ(Civil Judges) gain rich experience since they have been serving in the judiciary for a number of decades. Furthermore, every judicial officer, be it one who was initially recruited as CJ or one who was directly recruited as a District Judge, has an aspiration to reach at least up to the position of a High Court Judge.
We are, therefore, of the view that a proper balance has to be struck between the competing claims. However, this issue would involve consideration of some of the judgments and orders passed by Benches comprising of three learned judges of this Court. Therefore, in order to put the entire controversy at rest and provide a meaningful and long-lasting solution, we are of the considered view that it will be appropriate if the issue is considered by a by a Constitution Bench consisting of five learned Judges of this Court."
Case Title: ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION vs UNION OF INDIA
Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1119
Click here to read the judgment