District Judges 65% Quota | 'Merit-cum-Seniority' Doesn't Mean Comparative Merit : Supreme Court Upholds Gujarat HC Promotions Of Judicial Officers

The Supreme Court on Friday (May 17) upheld the recommendations made by the High Court of Gujarat in 2023 for the promotion of Senior Civil Judges to the 65% promotion quota of District Judges on the basis of merit-cum-seniority principle.

Last year, a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court had stayed the promotion on the prima facie ground the promotions were made violating the principle of "merit-cum-seniority". Today, delivering the final judgment in the petition, the bench of Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra vacated the stay and dismissed the challenge to the merit list. The Court upheld the final select list dated 10.03.2023 and found no fault in the process followed by the High Court.

What is the scope of principle of "merit-cum-seniority"?

The judgment explained the scope of the principle of "merit cum seniority". Justice Pardiwala, reading out the operative portion of the judgment, stated :

"What has been conveyed by the Supreme Court in the judgment in the All India Judges Association case is that the suitability of each candidate should be tested on their own merit. The said decision does not speak about comparative merit for the 65% promotional quota. In other words, what is stipulated is the determination of the suitability of candidates and assessment of their continued efficiency with adequate knowledge of case law.

For the 65% promotional quota, the Court did not state in the All India Judges Association case that after taking the suitability test, a merit list should be prepared and the judicial officers should be promoted only if they fall in the said merit list. It cannot be said to be a competitive exam. Only the suitability of the judicial officer is determined and once it is found that the candidates have secured the requisite marks in the suitability test, they cannot be thereafter ignored for promotion."

Accepting the petitioners' challenge would efface difference between 65% quota and 10% quota

The Court observed that to accept the contention of the petitioners would completely obliterate fine distinction between the 65% promotion (on the basis of merit cum seniority) and 10% promotion (on the basis of merit). In other words, the 65% promotion will assume the character of the 10% quota for promotion by way of the Departmental Competitive exam.

The Court found no fault in the promotion process adopted by the High Court of Gujarat as they satisfied the twin requirements stipulated in the All India Judges Association case - (i) the objective assessment of legal knowledge of the judicial officer including adequate knowledge of case law, (ii) the evaluation of continued efficiency of the individual candidate.

The Court held that the four components of the suitability test prescribed in the recruitment notice issued by the High Court comprehensively evaluate the candidate.

The Court also held that deviating from the process being followed by the High Court since 2011 will cause great prejudice to several judicial officers. 

The Court held that the judgment shall not be construed as invalidating the promotions granted by other High Courts based on a construction on their own rules and requirements. If any challenge to such promotion process is pending, it shall be dealt with independently by the High Courts.

The judgment added that, for the purpose of 65% promotional quota, it is for the particular High Court to lay down its own minimum standard to judge the suitability of the judicial officer including the requirement of comparative assessment, if necessary, to determine the merit to objectively adjudge, keeping in mind the statutory rules governing the promotion.

Background

The writ petitioners sought to declare the Select List dated 10.03.2023 issued by the High Court of Gujarat for the promotion of Senior Civil Judges to the Cadre of District Judge (65% quota) as being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as well as Rule 5 of the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules, 2005”).

In the case of All India Judges' Association and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2002) 4 SCC 247, the Court had directed that the recruitment to the cadre of District Judges will be on the basis of principle of “merit- cum-seniority” and passing a suitability test. In pursuance to the above directions, the High Court of Gujarat has framed the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005, in which, 50 percent of the promotion from amongst the Senior Civil Judges (Senior Division) has been enhanced to 65 percent by way of amendment in the Rules, 2005 on 23.06.2011. Rule 5(1)(i) of the Rules, 2005 requires that 65 percent of the posts in the cadre of District Judges shall be filled in by way of promotion from amongst the Senior Civil Judges on the basis of “principle of merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test”.

The High Court of Gujarat issued an advertisement by way of Recruitment Notice – District Judge (65%) dated 12.04.2022 for the promotion to the cadre of District Judges from amongst the Senior Civil Judges on the basis of the principle of merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test to fill up 65 percent of the vacancies. The said Notification was issued alongwith list of 205 judicial officers in the cadre of Senior Civil Judges falling under the zone of consideration.

The Recruitment Notice mentioned that “promotion to the cadre of District Judge (65%) from amongst the Senior Civil Judges will be on the basis of principle of merit-cum-seniority and on passing a suitability test.  In the Recruitment notice also, there was a reference to the suitability test, which comprised of four components for assessing the suitability of a judicial officer for promotion.

What the SC said while staying the promotion in 2023?

On May 12, 2023 the bench of Justices MR Shah and CT Ravikumar stayed the recommendation made by the Gujarat High Court for the promotion of the judicial officers observing :

"In the present case and as per the case on behalf of the High Court, so stated in the counter, the High Court has considered the merit only for the purpose of achieving the benchmark and thereafter has switched to the seniority-cum-merit and has given the promotion on the basis of seniority only amongst those, who have achieved the benchmark of 50 percent. Thus, after conducting the written test, which is one of the components to assess the suitability, the High Court has considered the merits only for the purpose of achieving benchmark and thereafter has switched to the principle of seniority-cum-merit and thereby has given a go-by to the principle of merit-cumseniority. The method adopted by the High Court is just contrary to the observations made by this Court in paragraph 27 in the case of All India Judges' Association and Ors. (supra) and also contrary to the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 and the Recruitment".

"The correct method would be to prepare the merit list on the basis of the four components as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the Recruitment Notice, from amongst those Senior Civil Judges (including ad-hoc Additional District Judges) having not less than two years of qualifying service in that cadre and thereafter to prepare the merit list on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained under different components and thereby to give the promotion solely on the basis of merit, then and then only, it can be said to be following the principle of meritcum-seniority," the Court stated.

In the stay order, the Court clarified that the stay order shall be confined with respect to those promotees whose names do not figure within the first 68 candidates in the Merit List on the basis of the merits

Case Title : Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta & Anr. v. High Court of Gujarat & Ors. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 432 of 2023 

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 387

Click here to read the judgment