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 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 seniorityThe 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 ...

No Quota For Judicial Officers In District Judge Posts : Supreme Court Issues Guidelines On Seniority In Higher Judicial Service

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

No Quota For Judicial Officers In District Judge Posts : Supreme Court Issues Guidelines On Seniority In Higher Judicial Service

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers