Direct Recruit District Judge Challenges Tamil Nadu Rule Fixing Seniority Of Promotees & Direct Recruits At 3:1 Ratio In Judicial Service

A District Judge from Tamil Nadu has moved the Supreme Court challenging a Government Order that retrospectively alters the seniority structure in the State's higher judicial service, alleging violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran yesterday issued notice to the respondents in the petition,

The petition, filed by S. Sameena, currently serving as Principal District Judge, Erode, seeks to quash G.O. (Ms) No. 518 dated October 7, 2025, issued by the Tamil Nadu Government, which amends Rule 8 of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007 with retrospective effect from January 1, 2012.

The amendment, framed in consultation with the Madras High Court, classifies District Judges into two separate lists, List I (promotees) and List II (direct recruits), and fixes seniority and promotional avenues between them in a 3:1 ratio, respectively.

According to the petitioner, the retrospective amendment will disrupt the existing seniority of directly appointed District Judges of the 2014 batch, effectively placing them below officers who were Civil Judges at the time of their direct recruitment.

“The retrospective implementation of the amendment directly impacts the promotion, elevation and pensionary benefits of directly appointed District Judges,” the petition states, adding that it violates the principles of reasonableness, consistency and predictability in service jurisprudence.

The petitioner contends that the amendment has been erroneously justified as being in compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association v. Union of India ((2002) 4 SCC 247). That judgment had mandated all High Courts to determine inter se seniority among District Judges on the basis of a roster principle, approved earlier in R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab ((1995) 2 SCC 745).

However, the petition argues that the Tamil Nadu amendment departs from this principle, and by applying a 3:1 ratio between promotees and direct recruits, effectively grants weightage to officers promoted from the subordinate judiciary, something specifically disapproved by the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association (2002).

"The amended Rule 8(1) of fixing seniority by classifying as List I and List II and fixing the seniority in the ratio of 3:1 among the promotee District Judges and the Direct District Judges on the basis of forming a separate List is unconstitutional and against the settled norms of this Hon'ble Court, considering that the person who has not borne into the cadre have been reserved a post in Selection Grade as well as Super time Scale. Rule 8(9) of fixing the seniority as 3:1 for merit and suitability is concerned, that fixation will amount to a Civil Judge superseding the seniority of a Direct Entry District Judge. In such circumstances a Civil Judge Junior Division, who has not borne into the cadre, at the relevant time when the said Direct Entry District Judge was appointed, would on being promoted in the said ratio, become Senior to a District Judge who has been directly recruited. Therefore, considering that the criteria of reasonableness is not subjective but objective, the fixation of ratio of 3:1 is unreasonable and unconstitutional and by the retrospective implementation of the said notification the seniority of the Writ Petitioner and similarly placed Directly appointed District Judges, who are presently placed higher in the seniority list as existing on 07.10.2025, would be disrupted for the purpose of promotion, elevation and other pensionary benefits," the petition stated.

Retrospective Effect Termed Arbitrary

The petitioner, who was appointed as a Direct District Judge (Entry Level) on January 9, 2014, under the unamended 2007 Rules, submits that the recruitment notification for her batch contained no indication of any impending change in service conditions.

“The amendment, being implemented retrospectively from 2012, takes away accrued rights and alters the service conditions of those already appointed,” the petition says, adding that the State cannot modify conditions of service retrospectively to the detriment of serving officers.

The petition highlights that under the new Rule 8(7), the grant of Selection Grade and Super Time Scale is now based on cadre strength distributed 75% to List I and 25% to List II.

Consequently, only 11 officers out of 22 direct recruits from the 2014 batch would become eligible for Super Time Scale posts. This, the petitioner claims, will adversely affect prospects for further elevation to the High Court, pointing out that since 2005, only 12 direct recruits have been elevated to the High Court of Madras, compared to 24 promotee judges.

The petition further submits that the rule's vague reference to a “zone of consideration” for elevation, without defining its parameters,interferes with the High Court collegium's discretion in recommending names for elevation.

Invoking Article 32 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned G.O.(Ms) No. 518 of 2025 and declare the retrospective amendment to Rule 8 as arbitrary, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 16.

The plea also argues that the unamended Rule 8,which determined seniority by the date of appointment,should continue to govern officers appointed under it, including the 2014 batch of direct recruits.

The petition has been filed through Advocate Sweena Madhavan Nair, and lists the State of Tamil Nadu, the Registrar General of the Madras High Court, the Principal Secretary to the Governor, and the Union of India as respondents.

It may be noted that a Constitution Bench led by the CJI is presently hearing the issue whether a quota should be earmarked for serving judicial officers for promotion as District Judges

Case : S Sameena v. State of Tamil Nadu and others | WP(c) 1027/2025