Today(on 17th May), The Supreme Court has upheld the promotion policy of the Gujarat High Court for the District Judge cadre under the 65% quota, based on merit-cum-seniority. Chief Justice DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra lifted the stay on promoting 68 judicial officers to district judges.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: Today(on 17th May), The Supreme Court has upheld the promotion policy followed by the Gujarat High Court for the promotion to the cadre of District Judge in the 65% quota from among the cadre of Senior Civil Judges. The policy, which is based on merit-cum-seniority, has been deemed to satisfy the twin test of subjective knowledge of candidates and continuous evaluation. The Court, comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, also lifted the stay it had earlier imposed on the decision of the Gujarat High Court and the subsequent State government notification to promote 68 judicial officers to the post of district judges.
According to the Court’s order-
“The final selection list of the High Court does not violate the principle of seniority-cum-merit. All petitions are dismissed, and the previously granted interim order is now vacated.”
However, the Court clarified that its decision would not result in the annulment of promotions in higher judicial services by other High Courts. This ruling followed a petition filed by candidates aspiring for district judge roles, who aimed to advance to the position of District Judge through the 65% promotion quota. These candidates contested the Gujarat government’s and Gujarat High Court’s actions in making appointments, alleging that promotions were being granted based on seniority-cum-merit instead of merit-cum-seniority.
ALSO READ:Supreme Court order of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ was challenged before the Gujarat high court
The petitioners argued that the promotions should have been based on the existing principle of merit-cum-seniority, which gives preference to merit over seniority. They contended that the selection list dated March 10, 2023, and the subsequent promotion order dated April 18, 2023, issued by the Government of Gujarat were illegal and contrary to Rule 5(1)(i) of the Rules, 2005, as amended in 2011, as well as the Recruitment Notice – District Judge (65%) dated April 12, 2022.
The petitioners also highlighted a previous Supreme Court judgment in the case of All India Judges’ Association and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors., where it was directed that recruitment to the higher judicial services, including the cadre of District Judges, should be based on the principle of ‘merit-cum-seniority’ and passing a suitability test, rather than ‘seniority-cum-merit’. They argued that despite this direction, candidates with much lower marks than the petitioners had been appointed.
Represented by Senior Counsel R Basant and PS Patwalia, the petitioners argued that the principle of seniority was being applied twice by the High Court. They contended that once the merit list is made based on the suitability test, it should be considered the select list.
The crux of the issue revolved around whether the test of seniority was applied by the High Court at two distinct stages of the selection process – first at the stage of the zone of consideration and then at the stage of the final list preparation.
The Gujarat High Court, represented by Senior Advocate V Giri assisted by advocate Vishakha, argued that the principle of “merit-cum-seniority” begins only once the promotion notification is issued by the High Court, which includes the names of the candidates in the zone of consideration. Accordingly, once a candidate clears the suitability test and secures the minimum marks, thereby qualifying the merit aspect, the select list is prepared based on seniority.
On the other hand, Senior Counsel Dushyant Dave and advocate Mayuri Raghuvanshi, representing the successful candidates, argued that if the principle of seniority is not applied while preparing the select list, it would diminish the distinction between the 10% quota where limited departmental examinations are held and the 65% quota.
The Supreme Court, in its judgment, upheld the policy followed by the Gujarat High Court and emphasized that the High Court has the power to determine the procedure in compliance with the All India Judges Association- II judgment and the procedure adopted by the High Court as per Rule 5 of The Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2011.
Furthermore, the Court formulated suggestions that can be adopted by High Courts across the nation when considering promotions in the 65% category.
The promotion list garnered significant attention when it was disclosed that one of the 68 individuals promoted was Surat Judicial Magistrate Harish Hasmukhbhai Varma, who had previously sentenced Congress leader Rahul Gandhi to two years of simple imprisonment for criminal defamation in March 2023.
