"Both Merit & Seniority Are Considered & Merit Plays Dominant Role": SC Upholds Promotions Of Judicial Officers In Gujarat

The Supreme Court has upheld that Select List made by the Gujarat High Court in 2023, for the promotion quota of District Judges on the basis of the 'Merit-cum-Seniority' principle.

In that context, the Bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra observed that, "it would be incorrect to hold that merely because the test was not one of comparative merit and as seniority was applied at the final stage of the selection process, the process cannot be said to be one not adhering to the principle of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’. As long as ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ is applied in the manner it has been explained in the decision in All India Judges’ Association, wherein both merit and seniority are considered, and merit plays the dominant role, the process of promotion cannot be said to be violative of the principle of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’."

Senior Counsel PS Patwalia and Senior Counsel R Basant appeared for the petitioners, while Senior Counsel V Giri, Senior Counsel Dushyant Dave and Counsel Mayuri Raghuvanshi appeared for the respondents.

In this case, the petitioners raised concerns about the promotion process for District Judges, challenging the High Court’s selection list. The respondents, judicial officers who had been promoted based on seniority, faced scrutiny over the application of the ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ principle. 

Promotion to the cadre of District Judge (65%) was based on the principle of merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test. The final Select List dated 10.03.2023 was found to be in contravention of the principle of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ as per the rules and previous court decisions. Out of the 149 eligible candidates, the seniormost 68 were given promotion to the post of District Judge based on evaluation criteria including Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), judgments, and disposal rates. A total of 149 judicial officers were found eligible for promotion as they secured a minimum of 40% marks in each evaluation component and a minimum aggregate of 50% marks overall in the suitability test. Out of 205 candidates, 175 judicial officers cleared the Written Test (Objective Type – MCQs) by securing a minimum of 40% marks.

The issue before the Court was the scope of the principle of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ in service jurisprudence. The key question was whether the promotion of Civil Judges (Senior Division) to the cadre of District Judges, as per the relevant rules and recruitment notice, aligned with the ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ principle. 

The Apex Court came to the following conclusions:

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

(B) For the 65% promotional quota this Court in All India Judges’ Association did not state 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 candidates have secured the requisite marks in the suitability test, they cannot be thereafter ignored for promotion.

(C) However, we clarify that for the 65% promotional quota, it is for a particular High Court to prescribe or lay down its own minimum standard to judge the suitability of a judicial officer, including the requirement of comparative assessment, if necessary, for the purpose of determining merit to be objectively adjudged keeping in mind the statutory rules governing the promotion or any promotion policy in that regard. 

(D) We find no fault with the promotion process adopted by the High Court of Gujarat as the same fulfils the twin requirements stipulated in paragraph 27 of All India Judges’ Association being: -

(I) The objective assessment of legal knowledge of the judicial officer including adequate knowledge of case law and;

(II) Evaluation of the continued efficiency of the individual candidates.

(E) The four components of the Suitability Test as prescribed under the recruitment notice dated 12.04.2022 comprehensively evaluate (i) the legal knowledge including knowledge of the case law through the objective MCQ - based written test AND (ii) the continued efficiency by evaluation of the ACRs, average disposal and past judgments of the concerned judicial officer.

(F) We are of the view that if the contention of the petitioners were to be accepted then it would completely obliterate the fine distinction between the two categories of promotion in the cadre of District & Sessions Judge by way of 65% promotion on the basis of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ and 10% promotion strictly on the basis of merit. In other words, the 65% quota for promotion will assume the character of the 10% quota for promotion by way of a departmental competitive examination which is distinct in its nature since the latter is strictly based on merit. 

(G) Deviating from the process of promotion duly followed by the High Court of Gujarat since 2011 would cause grave prejudice to those judicial officers who lost out in the previous selections to the Higher Judicial Service despite having scored higher marks in the suitability test since, judicial officers who were relatively senior were promoted to the cadre of District & Sessions Judges. Accepting the argument of the petitioners would completely flip the process and displace the respondents once again, for a contrary reason.

Accordingly, the Apex Court concluded that the impugned final Select List was not contrary to the principle of 'Merit-cum-Seniority' as stipulated in Rule 5(1)(I) of the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005.

Cause Title: Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta & Anr. vs High Court of Gujarat & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment