Supreme Court's Judgment Tomorrow On Whether District Judge Posts Should Have Quota For Promotee Judges
The Supreme Court will deliver its judgment tomorrow on the issue whether there should be a quota for the promotion of serving judicial officers as District Judge posts.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 is...
The Supreme Court will deliver its judgment tomorrow on the issue whether there should be a quota for the promotion of serving judicial officers as District Judge posts.
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 is considering whether to lay down uniform pan-India guidelines to determine the inter-se seniority in the judicial service. The Court is 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. Another suggestion before the bench is that serving officers can be given weightage in tune with their experience.
What Are The 4 Suggestions Given By The Amicus?
Sr Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, appearing as the amicus 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