Judges' Seniority Can't Be Fixed On Basis Of Roster Points; Must Be Based On Marks In Recruitment Exam : Madras High Court

In a significant judgment, the Madras High Court has held that the inter-se seniority among civil judges (junior division) cannot be fixed on the basis of 200-point roster system followed by Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) to apply the rule of reservation while recruiting them.

Instead, their seniority must be fixed only on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in the recruitment examination, ruled a division bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy.

The Court said that the judgment will apply to the seniority list of Civil Judge(Junior Division) from 2009 onwards. However, it clarified that promotions that had already been granted need not be disturbed and that the revised seniority list must be followed for future promotions. 

"The promotions obtained till today by candidates who have been recruited as Civil Judge (Junior Division) in or after the year 2009 will remain unaffected by this order, in the sense that no one already promoted should be demoted to a lower post", the judgment said.  Any fixation or re-fixation of seniority made in accordance with law for judges recruited prior to 2009 will remain unaffected by this order.

Also, the directions would apply in respect of the recruitment  processes conducted in 2009, 2012, 2015 and 2018. The seniority list for the appointees pursuant to the 2020 recruitment will also be governed by the law as declared in the judgment.

The State of Tamil Nadu and the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission maintained that the roster positions would govern the inter se seniority of the judicial officers recruited. Rejecting their stands, the Court observed that the roster system is a method devised to apply reservation to vacancies as and when they arise, and the position in the roster does not reflect the merit of the person. Determining seniority solely on the basis of roster point can affect the merit of the person, particularly a Meritorious Reserved Category candidate ("MRC")

The Court illustrated this point with the following example.

"It is possible that in a 10-point roster, the second, fourth and eighth positions are earmarked for general category candidates; but a reserved category candidate obtains marks which are better than the third-placed general category candidate. In that case, such MRC will take up the eighth slot in the 10-point roster, though as the first in the reserved category he may otherwise have been entitled to obtain the first slot in the roster. Thus, when merit is given recognition by treating an MRC to be entitled to a general category seat, the position that may have been occupied by the MRC in the roster is lost to him and he occupies a lower slot on the roster. In such a scenario, if the roster system is taken to be the order of seniority among the recruited candidates, it would result in an MRC being penalised for his merit".

Referring to a catena of Supreme Court precedents, the judgment authored by Chief Justice Banerjee stated :

"In the light of the above, the issue is no longer res integra and it may no longer be contended that the roster position would determine the seniority of the recruits in any recruitment process.

Thus, the seniority of the persons inducted to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) from 2009 onwards has to be determined in accordance with the marks obtained by the successful candidates in the recruitment examination such that the appointee with the highest marks will be placed in the first position and the appointee with the lowest marks among the successful candidates will be placed in the last position in the list prepared according to seniority, irrespective of, and completely without reference to, the positions such appointees may have occupied on the 200-point roster".

The Court noted in its judgment that the order of seniority which is decided at the time that the successful candidates are born into the cadre is of paramount importance as it influences the further progress of the candidate to the two upper tiers and even has an impact in their possible elevation to the High Court.

The Court was dealing with a batch of petitions pertaining to the recruitment conducted in 2009 and the order of seniority for Civil Judges (Junior Division) who were recruited in that year.

The High Court referred to the Supreme Court precedent in the case of Bimlesh Tanwar vs. State of Haryana, 2003 (5) SCC 604 :

"An affirmative action in terms of Article 16(4) of the Constitution is meant for providing a representation of a class of citizenry who are socially or economically backward. Article 16 of the Constitution of India is applicable in the case of an appointment. It does not speak of fixation of seniority. Seniority is, thus, not to be fixed in terms of the roster points. If that is done, the rule of affirmative action would be extended which would strictly not be in consonance of the constitutional schemes", the Supreme Court had held in the said precedent.

In the judgment, Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee explained why the roster point system is introduced and said that it is only a "template" to effectuate reservation in complex recruitment processes. The roster point only determines when a person joins the post.

To hold that seniority must be based on roster point will run foul of Article 14 of the Constitution on the ground of unreasonableness and the prejudice suffered by the MRC as a consequence.

Case Title : N Vasudevan and others vs The Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Madras and others

Click here to read/download the judgment