Creating Quotas For District Judges Is Iniquitous: Supreme Court Issues Directions On Seniority Of Officers In Higher Judicial Services

While holding that creating quotas within the cadre of District Judges is unfair, the Supreme Court has issued certain directions with respect to the determination of seniority of officers in the Higher Judicial Services (HJS).

All India Judges Association (AIJA) had approached the Court, seeking to revisit the principles governing the determination of seniority within the cadre of HJS of all the States.

The Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held, “The separate seniority list in respect of the three different sources would also result in inequalities. We have no reason to doubt that creating quotas for fixation in the Selection Grade and Super Time Scale within the cadre of District Judges based on the prior service in the lower rungs of the Judiciary would be iniquitous and would result in sacrificing merit.”

The Bench said that the continuous length of service ought to be the criterion for determining inter se seniority in the HJS, subject to the further condition that all appointees in a single recruitment year are placed against their respective annual roster points, regardless of the actual date of appointment.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar was appointed as the Amicus Curiae.

Factual Background

The HJS, across the country, is comprised of officers recruited through three sources: (i) Regular Promotees (RP); (ii) those promoted through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations (LDCE); and (iii) Direct Recruits (DR). These three sources for recruitment and appointment to the position of District Judge were crystallised through various directions issued in the successive All India Judges Association (AIJA) proceedings. It is amongst these three sources that the dispute of inter se seniority arose. Over the course of many decades, divergent approaches were adopted in an endeavour to reconcile competing claims between different streams of appointment, reflecting the Court’s continued attempt to bring coherence and uniformity to this enduring issue.

Such a question again arose before the Court for consideration in light of an Interlocutory Application filed in the lead case. Notice was accordingly issued in respect of the same and the Apex Court directed the Registrar (Judicial) to place the case before the CJI, on the administrative side for obtaining appropriate Orders. Thereafter, the CJI directed that the case be placed before a five-Judge Bench. The case was taken up in October this year, whereupon the limited question requiring consideration arose, i.e., “What should be the criteria for determining seniority in the cadre of Higher Judicial Services?”.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court in the above regard, observed, “… there can be no separate quota insofar as the recommendations for elevation to the High Court are concerned. We say so, being especially mindful of the truism that such processes are neither promotions nor a fixation for financial upgradation or career advancement.”

The Court noted that the mere inability of certain officers to succeed in 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”, it reiterated.

The Court remarked that the officers appointed earlier also cannot be aggrieved, as they would be adjusted within the roster only along with their relative contemporaries in the service and would be put on notice regarding the seniority determination once the other selections are concluded.

“If the High Court, for any valid reason, decides not to initiate the recruitment process from any of the three sources in a given year, the person subsequently appointed from those sources shall not be eligible to be placed within the roster for that year in which recruitment from the source did not take place”, it added.

The Court said that ambition is a ladder, the last rung of which is always elusive to the one pursuing it, who endlessly searches for it; based on which, seniority cannot be fixed.

“For all these reasons, we are compelled to note that the questions raised and the reliefs sought by the learned Amicus through this Interlocutory Application must be declined, save for the mechanisms envisaged and enumerated through this judgment”, it further observed.

Conclusion and Directions

The Court, therefore, recorded some conclusions and issued directions as under –

(i) That, perceived discontentment and heartburn without something more in the form of a legal claim, illegal denial, or at least a legitimate expectation cannot result in creating an artificial classification of members within a cadre.

(ii) That, the statistical data is disparate and does not provide a substantial basis to find such discontentment and heartburn of RPs in the HJS, to be justified.

(iii) That, there is no common malady of disproportionate representation of DRs in the HJS such that it is diminishing the prospects of financial upgradation or designation as Principal District Judges to the promotees, which afflict the Country as a whole or make it imperative for this Court to resolve it, by giving a preference to RPs or LDCEs.

(iv) That, the data put forth in many States indicates a prevalence or equivalence of RPs in the HJS and key positions, which is natural since their ratio is 3/4th of the total posts in the cadre.

(v) That, 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.

(vi) That 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.

(vii) That, 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 Khosa15 by a Constitution Bench of this Court on the basis of educational qualifications stands on a different footing.

(viii) That, individual career aspirations are a normal incidence of service, accentuated only by better performance; they are not connected to the objective of an independent and strengthened judiciary and cannot guide the shape of the rules of seniority.

(ix) That, sufficient accelerated opportunities are provided for Members of the Judicial Service entering into the lower rungs, for career advancement as provided by the Constitution Bench in Rejanish K.V.1; enabling the reckoning of their service for direct recruitment to HJS and by the Sixth AIJA8; facilitating fast-track promotions to Civil Judge (Senior Division) and the HJS through reduction in the minimum period of service.

(x) That, 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.

(xi) That, 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.

(xii) That, 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.

(xiii) That, 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.

(xiv) That, 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 also directed the respective States/Union Territory Administrations to undertake appropriate amendments in their respective statutory rules, in consultation with the High Court, to bring them in consonance with the guidelines laid down in this Judgment, within a period of three months.

“The question framed by us is thus answered in the above terms. The instant Interlocutory Application stands disposed of”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the Apex Court disposed of the Interlocutory Application and issued necessary directions.

Cause Title- All India Judges Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1328)

Click here to read/download the Judgment