The Supreme Court has firmly rejected the idea of creating any quota or special preference for Civil Judges seeking promotion to the post of District Judge. The Court said such a move would fracture the unity of the Higher Judicial Service and go against the principle that all officers in the cadre must be treated equally.
A Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice B. R. Gavai, with Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K. Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi, noted that there is no evidence that directly recruited judges are underrepresented. Because of this, the concerns raised by officers who rise through the lower judiciary cannot be a reason to carve out a separate category or grant additional benefits. The Bench stressed that once an officer enters the Higher Judicial Service, their mode of entry is irrelevant. Regular Promotees, officers who qualify through the limited departmental competitive examination, and Direct Recruits all belong to a single and unified cadre.
The Court reaffirmed that seniority must be fixed through the recurring four place roster that repeats each year in the order of two Regular Promotees, one departmental candidate and one Direct Recruit. If vacancies meant for the exam-based route or direct recruitment remain unfilled in a particular year, they may be given to Regular Promotees, but only at later positions in the roster to maintain fairness.
The Bench also clarified that promotions to the Selection Grade and the Super Time Scale must depend solely on merit and seniority within the Higher Judicial Service. Experience or achievements as a Civil Judge cannot be used to claim any advantage in seniority or promotion. Performance in the lower judicial service, the Court said, does not offer a constitutional basis for special treatment once an officer enters the higher cadre.
With this ruling, the Supreme Court has underscored that progression within the Higher Judicial Service must stay uniform, transparent and free of artificial distinctions, protecting the structure and integrity of the judicial hierarchy.
WhatsAppPinterestFacebookEmailPrintGoogle TranslateShare