Supreme Court: While considering this matter seeking to revisit the principles governing the determination of seniority within the cadre of statewide Higher Judicial Services (HJS), the 5-Judge Bench of B.R. Gavai, CJI, Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K. Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ., stated that the Court intends to lay down general and mandatory guidelines which shall, henceforth, be incorporated into the respective statutory service rules governing the determination of inter se seniority among officers appointed from different sources to the Higher Judicial Services.
The Court thus invoked the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution and issued the following directions vis-a-vis determination and entitlement of seniority:
-
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 Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations, and 1 Direct Recruitment.
-
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.
-
That, 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 the directions issued herein shall not be construed as an avenue to reopen or unsettle inter se seniorities that have already been determined between officers appointed from the different sources of recruitment.
Background:
HJS across the country, comprises of officers recruited through three sources: (i) Regular Promotees (RP); (ii) those promoted through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations (LDCE); and (iii) Direct Recruits (DR). These three sources for recruitment and appointment to the position of District Judge were crystallised through various directions issued in the successive All India Judges Association (AIJA) proceedings. However, the dispute regarding determination of seniority arose within the afore-stated recruitment sources.
The present application brought to light an ‘anomalous situation’ pertaining to the inter se seniority between District Judges (Direct Recruits) and District Judges (Promotees).
While perusing the matter, the 5-Judge Bench had to consider that what should be the criteria for determining seniority in the cadre of Higher Judicial Services.
Suggestions, Contentions:
The Amicus put forth the following suggestions for the Court’s perusal:
-
1:1 quota should be prescribed for appointment to Selection Grade and Super Time Scale within the HJS
-
The zone of consideration for upgradation to Selection Grade and Super Time Scale should comprise equal numbers of DRs and promotees (RPs and LDCEs combined), without any prescription regarding the actual selections
-
Providing one year seniority for every five years of completed service within the lower rungs of the judicial service, subject to a maximum of three years, which is an attempt to revive the recommendation of the Shetty Commission
-
Creating three separate seniority lists within the HJS, on the basis of source of recruitment, in the ratio of 50:25:25, as recommended by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
The RPs meanwhile contended that age advantage enjoyed by DRs enables their progress to the Selection Grade and the Super Time Scale, as well as taking on administrative roles in Districts, and ultimately, being elevated to the High Court. Experience in judicial service is superior to experience at the Bar, and there should be recognition of prior judicial service in the posts of Civil Judge-Junior Division (Munsiff/Magistrates) and Civil Judge-Senior Division (Sub Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrates), whether they are promoted to the HJS from the RP or LDCE cadres.
While counsels for the LDCEs contended that if sufficient candidates are not found through LDCE in a recruitment year, the vacancies should not be filled by RPs but should be carried forward. In such a scenario, the passed-over seniority ought to be conferred in the successive selection; The position on the roster should be preserved even if there aren’t sufficient vacancies available in any given year.
The DRs however argued that there is no pressing need to create any favourable systems so as to promote RPs and LDCEs. The High Courts, being conferred with the power to regulate, inter alia, the inter se seniority within the Judicial Services, are better equipped to determine the issue on the basis of the statistics and features intrinsic to a particular State Judicial Service, as well as to determine the inter se seniority within the cadre of District Judges. Upon entry into the HJS, the source of recruitment becomes inconsequential, and the service rendered in the feeder category pales into insignificance. When seniority of the incumbents in a particular recruitment year is adjusted as per the roster system providing proportional representation to RPs, LDCEs and DRs, such seniority on entry continues and the birthmark of the source from which they were recruited is no more relevant for further career advancement within the cadre by way of fixation in the higher grades or designation for the discharge of administrative duties.
Court’s Assessment:
“It is well settled that career progression to the higher echelons of the judiciary is neither a matter of right nor of entitlement”.
The Court pointed out that the series of AIJA decisions acknowledged and recognised the fact that in a democracy, the role of the judiciary is truly indispensable. For the efficient functioning of the Rule of Law and to ensure that Indian democracy prospers; it is de reiguer that an efficient, strong, and enlightened judiciary is nurtured.
The Court stated that Articles 233 to 235 of the Constitution assign policy decisions, such as the specific manner of implementing the directions of this Court, to the domain of the High Court. However, at the same time, the Court pointed out that it is also essential that overarching guidelines, which would apply across all States, be framed to ensure the development of unified and robust judicial services, with the ultimate goal of cultivating an independent judiciary. “These guidelines do not foreclose the powers of the High Court; instead, they establish a homogenous framework within which each High Court, as a Constitutional Court, can exercise superintendence over the judicial services”.
The Court emphasised that fixation in higher grades and designations for the purpose of discharging administrative duties is never dependent solely on seniority; merit and suitability are the norm, which must be evaluated based on service in that cadre, rather than prior service in the lower rungs.
“If entry into the HJS is viewed as a common destination, one may conceive of DRs as reaching that destination by flight, LDCEs as travelling by train, and RPs as traversing the distance on foot. At first blush, it may indeed appear that the RPs experience a greater degree of heartburn when compared to the relative swiftness with which the other categories are able to enter the HJS”.
The Court further stated that the theory of classification, as proposed by the Amicus, subverts and submerges the precious guarantee of equality as available to the members of the common cadre, who, on appointment and determination of their inter se seniority, at the time of appointment into the HJS, lose the ‘birthmark’ of the source from which they are appointed.
If at all the experience in the lower rungs of the judiciary is to be reckoned for determining seniority in HJS, there should be some compelling reason which stands the test of reasonableness, not being vitiated by the foul of arbitrariness, which again has to be provided by means of statutory rules. “In our view, there is no basis to consider the previous experience as a Civil Judge as an intelligible differentia creating a reasonable classification to favour RPs or LDCEs in the selection for higher grade scales or appointment as Principal District Judges”.
The Court stated that creating quotas for fixation in the Selection Grade and Super Time Scale within the cadre of District Judges based on the prior service in the lower rungs of the Judiciary would be iniquitous and would result in sacrificing merit.
Important Conclusions:
With the afore-stated directions on determination of seniority within HJS, the Court also concluded the following:
-
Perceived discontentment and heartburn without something more in the form of a legal claim, illegal denial, or at least a legitimate expectation cannot result in creating an artificial classification of members within a cadre.
-
The statistical data is disparate and does not provide a substantial basis to find such discontentment and heartburn of RPs in the HJS, to be justified.
-
There is no common malady of disproportionate representation of DRs in the HJS such that it is diminishing the prospects of financial upgradation or designation as Principal District Judges to the promotees, which afflict the Country as a whole or make it imperative for this Court to resolve it, by giving a preference to RPs or LDCEs.
-
The data put forth in many States indicates a prevalence or equivalence of RPs in the HJS and key positions, which is natural since their ratio is 3/4th of the total posts in the cadre.
-
On the entry into a common cadre from different sources (RP, LDCE and DR) and assignment of seniority as per the annual roster, the incumbents lose their ‘birthmark’ of the source from which they are recruited.
-
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 latter loses its significance after RPs and LDCEs, by its virtue, are propelled into the HJS. Reliance on it does not serve the object of efficient administration of justice and is counterproductive.
-
The length and performance as a Civil Judge also does not constitute an intelligible differentia to classify incumbents in the common cadre of District Judge and the classification made in State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa, (1974) 1 SCC 19 by a Constitution Bench of this Court on the basis of educational qualifications stands on a different footing.
-
Individual career aspirations are a normal incidence of service, accentuated only by better performance; they are not connected to the objective of an independent and strengthened judiciary and cannot guide the shape of the rules of seniority.
-
Sufficient accelerated opportunities are provided for Members of the Judicial Service entering into the lower rungs, for career advancement as provided by the Constitution Bench in Rejanish K.V. v K. Deepa, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2196; enabling the reckoning of their service for direct recruitment to HJS and by the AIJA(6), 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1184; facilitating fast-track promotions to Civil Judge (Senior Division) and the HJS through reduction in the minimum period of service.
[All India Judges Association v. Union of India, WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022 OF 1989, decided on 19-11-2025]
Buy Constitution of India HERE
