Supreme Court Restores 25% Quota Reserved For LDCE For Promotion To Higher Judicial Services
The Supreme Court emphasised that a uniform practice must be followed by all the States and since most of the States are already filling up the vacant posts as per the total cadre strength, the quota to be reserved for LDCE should be calculated on the basis of the cadre strength.
CJI B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court while restoring 3-year minimum legal practice experience for entry-level Civil Judges, observed that no adverse impact on the administration of justice would occur even if the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE quota) is increased to 25%.
The Court was deciding a batch of Applications raising issues pertaining to the qualification, promotion and selection of candidates who are desirous of either entering the Judicial Services as Civil Judge (Junior Division) or Higher Judicial Service, and with regard to the promotions at different levels within the Judicial Services.
The three-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, and Justice K. Vinod Chandran held, “If, in a particular year sufficient candidates are not selected from the LDCE quota, it will be appropriate that such posts would revert back to the regular promotion quota based on merit-cum-seniority, to be filled up in the same year. Therefore, in such a case, we find that no adverse impact on the administration of justice would occur even if the LDCE quota is increased to 25%. In our view, this apart from avoiding any adverse effect on administration of justice due to sufficient number of seats not being filled up would also ensure that no prejudice would be caused to the regular promotees and at the same time, the said exercise would provide an incentive to the meritorious Judicial Officers, if their merit deserves the same.”
The Bench emphasised that a uniform practice needs to be followed by all the States in the country and since most of the States are already filling up the vacant posts as per the total cadre strength, the quota to be reserved for LDCE should be calculated on the basis of the cadre strength.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in the above context of the case, noted, “… the purpose behind providing a special quota for LDCE is to enable the meritorious Judicial Officers to get accelerated promotion and enter the Cadre of District Judge at an earlier point of time than other less meritorious candidates.”
The Court added that if a Judicial Officer even otherwise gets entry in the Cadre of District Judge after completion of 5 years of service as a Civil Judge (Senior Division), there will be no incentive available to him/her.
“… it will be desirable to modify the requirement to become eligible for LDCE for the Higher Judicial Services and reduce the minimum number of years of experience as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) from 5 years to 3 years. However, at the same time, we are also of the opinion that, as recommended by some of the States, the total number of years of experience for a Judicial Officer for being eligible for LDCE should be a minimum cumulative of 7 years including service as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Civil Judge (Senior Division)”, it said.
The Court was of the view that a system wherein 10% of the posts in the Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) would be reserved for promotion of Civil Judge (Junior Division) through the LDCE mechanism needs to be introduced so as to provide incentive at an earlier promotion to the meritorious candidates working in the Cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division).
“The said seats would be filled up through the same mechanism adopted for filling up the vacancies reserved through LDCE for entry into the Cadre of District Judge. The minimum experience of a Judicial Officer in the Cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division) for appearing in such an examination should be 3 years”, it further observed.
The Court remarked that though every High Court would be required to frame the Rules for determining the suitability of a candidate for being promoted to the Cadre of Higher Judicial Service from the Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division), no straight-jacket formula can be laid down for the said purpose.
“We however find that, in such of the States where the Rules have not been framed for determining the suitability of a candidate for being promoted to the Cadre of Higher Judicial Service from the Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division), such of the High Courts and the State Governments should frame the Rules forthwith. We further find that the High Courts and the State Governments shall also examine, as to whether the Rules already existing are sufficient to determine the suitability of a candidate for being promoted to the Cadre of Higher Judicial Service from the Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division)”, it also added.
Accordingly, the Apex Court issued the necessary directions.
Cause Title- All India Judges Association and Others v. Union of India and Others (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 735)
Appearance:
Senior Advocates B.H. Marlapalle, Sidharth Bhatnagar, AORs Radhika Gautam, Ankit Yadav, and Advocate Aditya Sidhra.
