On Monday(8th April), The Supreme Court of India is reviewing petitions questioning the appointment of 68 Gujarat judicial officers, alleging preference for seniority over merit.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on Monday(8th April), has commenced hearings on petitions that challenge the appointment of 68 judicial officers in Gujarat. The petitioners have filed a writ petition, arguing that the Gujarat High Court appointed these officers primarily based on seniority rather than merit.
Representing the petitioners, Senior Advocate R. Basanth passionately presented his case before the Supreme Court. He highlighted that two of the petitioners he represented had achieved impressive scores of 142 and 134.5 out of 200 in the suitability test for the appointment of District Judges.
According to the Gujarat State Judicial Rules of 2005, the appointment of Senior Civil Judges to the District Judiciary requires a minimum of two years of experience. Basanth further informed the court that the Gujarat High Court had identified 205 senior civil judges who fulfilled this criteria.
Basanth argued that the petitioners, who ranked higher in the merit list, were unquestionably deserving of promotion. However, he expressed deep concern that the Gujarat High Court deviated from a merit-based approach and instead appointed 68 judicial officers solely based on seniority. This departure from established principles, as outlined in the landmark case of All India Judges Association v Union of India (2002), effectively reversed the appointment process from one based on merit-cum-seniority to seniority-cum-merit.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court order of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ was challenged before the Gujarat high court
The senior advocate expressed his dismay over the fact that even the 68th officer appointed had scored a mere 100 marks.
Basanth lamented this situation, stating-
“Those below us march over us only on the basis of seniority.”
This revelation emphasized the need for a thorough examination of the selection process and its impact on the overall competency of the appointed officers.
Responding to the petitioner’s arguments, Senior Advocate V. Giri, representing the Gujarat High Court, emphasized that the written test was not the sole determining factor for appointing judicial officers. Giri clarified that the assessment also considered other essential criteria, such as Annual Confidential Reports, annual disposals, and judgments delivered. From the initial pool of 205 candidates, 175 were shortlisted based on these multifaceted criteria.
Out of this group, the 68 most senior officers were ultimately selected for appointment. According to Giri, these appointees were considered “otherwise meritorious,” indicating that the selection process had taken into account various aspects of their performance and competence.
Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud raised an important question during the proceedings, suggesting that seniority should carry far lesser weight compared to merit. He proposed that candidates who met the minimum threshold of seniority, which required a minimum of two years’ experience as a judge, should be primarily evaluated based on their merits.
ALSO READ: Debate on Gender Equality in the Judiciary: Insights from SG Tushar Mehta: Merit over Tokenism
Justice Chandrachud’s insightful query challenged the prevalent notion that seniority automatically supersedes merit in the appointment of judicial officers.
He asked-
“Does merit then not assume a subsidiary importance over seniority?”
In response to the Chief Justice’s inquiry, Senior Advocate Dushyant Dave noted that the existing method of appointing district judges in Gujarat had been in place since 2011. He argued that the majority of High Courts across India, except for Jharkhand and Calcutta, followed a similar procedure.
Dave asserted that this longstanding practice should not be disrupted, emphasizing the High Court’s ultimate authority in matters of district judge appointments. He stated that the petitioners were advocating for promotion based solely on merit, which constitutes a specific form of “direct recruitment” involving a written test and interview. Dave clarified that promotion through the suitability test is distinct from direct recruitment, focusing exclusively on merit.
The Supreme Court hearings on this matter are expected to conclude on 15th April 2024.
The statement by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud highlighting that “merit-cum-seniority” isn’t explicitly defined in law, but rather necessitates interpretation according to the needs of district judiciary.
