Today, On 19th November, in the District Judge Appointments case, Supreme Court says Selection Grade follows merit cum seniority and orders all States and UTs to amend service rules within three months, ensuring uniform implementation of new roster, seniority, and promotion guidelines across the judicial services system.
New Delhi: A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, pronounced its judgment today on the major question of career stagnation faced by judicial officers across the country.
During the hearing, the Bench explained the legal issues involved and also clarified how seniority must be handled for different categories of District Judges.
The Bench, which included Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, ruled that seniority within the High Judicial Service (HJS) should be determined by the continuous length of service according to an annual roster.
They noted that once officers enter the cadre, they forfeit the “birthmark” associated with their recruitment source.
CJI Gavai said,
“We have identified the core issue. The IA asks us to re-examine questions of seniority within the higher judicial services. Judges don’t have an easy task they do what most people avoid they make decisions. We have relied on observations from the earlier AIJS case. Our guidelines are broad and mandatory for determining inter se seniority, but they should not be treated as reopening seniority matters of those already appointed. These guidelines apply as of today and may need to be revisited once the Rajanish judgment is implemented. If circumstances change, even recalling the guidelines may become necessary.”
The Chief Justice clearly stated that the unease among regular promotees was not a valid legal ground to change the established seniority structure.
He observed,
“The discomfort felt by regular promotees cannot justify creating a separate category. There is no widespread problem of direct recruits being over represented. Selection Grade is determined on a merit cum seniority basis. Time spent serving as a Civil Judge cannot be treated as a valid distinguishing factor to carve out a separate class of District Judges. Personal career ambitions are a normal part of service life they cannot dictate or alter the framework of seniority.”
Explaining the roster system, the CJI further noted,
“Once direct recruits and limited departmental candidates are appointed, the remaining vacancies must be filled by regular promotees according to the prescribed roster. All States and Union Territories are instructed to make the necessary changes to their service rules to give effect to these guidelines within three months.”
The upcoming judgment is expected to bring clarity on seniority disputes, promotional delays and long-pending stagnation issues in the judicial services.
The Court resolved the Interlocutory Application (I.A. No. 230675 of 2025) in the ongoing All India Judges Association case, issuing mandatory guidelines applicable to all States and High Courts.
The issue at hand pertained to the seniority rankings among three recruitment sources for the HJS:
- Regular Promotees (RP)
- Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations (LDCE)
- and Direct Recruits (DR).
The application was submitted by Amicus Curiae, Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, who highlighted an “anomalous situation” in which judicial officers appointed as Civil Judges frequently did not advance to the positions of Principal District Judge or High Court Judge.
This stagnation had deterred young lawyers from pursuing a career in the service. Noting the need to achieve a “proper balance between competing claims,” a three-judge bench referred the issue to the Constitution Bench on October 7, 2025, in order to resolve the matter once and for all.
Case Title: All India Judges Association case and Ors. Vs. Union Of India and Ors.
Read Attachment
Read Live Coverage
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
