District Judge Appointments : Supreme Court Issues Directions For Reinstatement & Seniority Following 'Rejanish v. Deepa' Judgment

The Supreme Court on Wednesday passed a slew of directions regarding the appointment and seniority of District Judges, in furtherance of last year's Constitution Bench judgment in Rejanish KV v. K Deepa, which held that civil judges with seven years of experience at the bar are eligible to seek direct recruitment as District Judges.A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi passed the directions.Certain Civil Judges, who were directly recruited as District Judges, were reverted to Civil Judge posts following the 2020 judgment in Dheeraj Mor, which had held that only practising advocates were eligible for direct recruitment as District Judges. Dheeraj Mor was overruled in Rejanish. The three-judge bench ordered today that all such reversions are illegal, and all those judicial officers, who were previously appointed as District Judges, will be deemed to be in service as District Judges since their original date of appointment, and that they will be entitled to consequential seniority and benefits."We have no doubt that such reversals are liable to be declared illegal. We order accordingly. All the judicial officers who had earlier been appointed shall be deemed to be in service along with seniority and notional pay benefits without any arrears of pay."The bench then considered the second category of officers who participated in the selection process which was complete, but final appointment orders could not be issued due to grounds of eligibility. The bench directed : "We direct the High Courts and the State Governments to offer appointments to all the judicial officers forthwith, which shall be initially with effect from 10.10.2025, that is, a day after the Constitution bench judgment was delivered on 9th October 2025. However, since the issues on the determination of seniority are complex , based upon facts which are varying from High Court to High Court, we direct that their seniority, vis a vis those officers who have been appointed mainly after their selection process was complete but before their appointment to be made now under the direction of this court, the inter se seniority shall be determined by the High Court after hearing all the officers who are likely to be affected."The Court further directed that such inter-se seniority shall be determined by a 3-Judge committee to be constituted by the High Courts. The consideration of seniority shall be placed before the full bench of the High Court for the final decision.The High Courts are directed to determine the inter-se seniority of these officers within a period of 3 months. The third category of officers are those whose selection processes are not yet complete. Regarding them, the Court directed the High Courts to complete the process and appoint the eligible officers. The bench added that those officers who make it to the merit list shall be entitled to seniority prospectively and "in such cases the old settled seniority will not be reopened". The bench added that for those officers who are yet to participate in the selection process, "no imaginative rights shall be created in their favor only because at one point of time, they were eligible to participate in the said process. However, if such officers have become overage, age relaxation shall be granted and the High Courts are directed to initiate a fresh selection process, giving them the opportunity to participate. It is needless to say that if these officers also qualify and are selected , they shall be entitled to appointments." The last category of persons, the Court recorded, were from the Bar Associations who are challenging the appointments of the judicial officers. The Court clarified that "all such challenges are liable to fall flat in view of the judgment of the Constitution bench."The bench further ordered that all such challenges pending before the High Courts are disposed or deemed to have been dismissed.Senior Advocates Vibha Datta Makhija, Menaka Guruswamy, Gopal Sankaranarayanan,George Poonthottam, etc., appeared for the applicants.HeadnoteConstitution of India – Article 233(2) – Eligibility of Judicial Officers for District Judge Recruitment – Direct Recruitment vs. Promotion – Practice Requirement - Held: In-service judicial officers are eligible for appointment as District Judges through direct recruitment - Their past service as a judicial officer must be counted toward the minimum practice requirement of seven years as stipulated under Article 233(2) - Categories of Relief held – i. Category A (Appointed but Reverted): Officers whose appointments were reversed due to an erroneous interpretation of law are deemed to have continued in service without a break - They are entitled to seniority and notional pay fixation but no arrears of pay; ii. Category B (Selected but not Formally Appointed): Selected candidates whose appointments were stalled by judicial intervention must be immediately offered...

District Judge Appointments : Supreme Court Issues Directions For Reinstatement & Seniority Following 'Rejanish v. Deepa' Judgment

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anmol Kaur Bawa

District Judge Appointments : Supreme Court Issues Directions For Reinstatement & Seniority Following 'Rejanish v. Deepa' Judgment

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Anmol Kaur Bawa

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers