The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to allow quota for Civil Judges/ Regular Promotees (RPS) when it comes to appointment to Higher Judicial Service (HJS) [All India Judges Association vs. Union of India].

A Bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi held that length of service as civil judge cannot be the basis to claim separate classification for appointment to HJS or as Principal District Judges.

"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 Limited Department Competitive Examinations (LDCE) candidates in the selection for higher grade scales or appointment as Principal District Judges," the judgment said.

However, the Court also said that High Courts can, based on data and statistics, provide preferential treatment to any group within the HJS.

While RPs experience a greater degree of heartburn when compared to the relative swiftness with which the other categories are able to enter the HJS, this perceived difficulty stands sufficiently addressed by the fact that this Court has ensured the availability of multiple avenues to Promotees for career advancement—whether through the LDCE or through direct recruitment (DR) as recognised in the Court's latest judgment in Rejanish KV v. K Deepa.  

"When such opportunities exist, the mere inability of certain officers to succeed in these examinations on the basis of merit, or the contention that their promotional channel is slower or numerically larger, cannot furnish a valid basis for seeking preferential treatment within the HJS merely on account of a sense of grievance. 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 said.

The Court was hearing a plea concerning inter se seniority between District Judges (Direct Recruits) and District Judges (Promotees).

The plea pointed out that in most of the states, judicial officers recruited as Civil Judge often do not reach the level of Principal District Judge.

This, it was argued, was resulting in many bright young lawyers being dissuaded from joining the service at the level of Civil Judge.

However, the Court held that perceived discontentment or heartburn of RPs or LDCEs, without a demonstrable legal right, illegal denial, or at least a legitimate expectation, cannot justify creating a special quota, extra weightage, or artificial classification within the HJS.

The Court also held that no all India malady of DRs crowding out promotees stood proved.

"On the data placed by the Amicus and the High Courts, the Court finds no common nation wide problem of Direct Recruits dominating the HJS in a way that systematically diminishes the prospects of promotees for financial upgradation or Principal District Judge posts. In many States, Regular Promotees already hold a large or equivalent share of key positions, which is consistent with their higher cadre ratio," the Bench said.

It proceeded to issue the following general and mandatory guidelines to be incorporated into the respective statutory service rules governing the determination of inter se seniority among officers appointed from different sources to HJS.

- 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 Triloki Nath Khosa by a Constitution Bench of this Court on the basis of educational qualifications stands on a different footing.

- 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 RPs, 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 directed States and Union Territories to incorporate appropriate amendments to their statutory rules in consultation with the High Court, to bring them in consonance with the above guidelines.

[Read Judgment]