Senior Advocate V.V. Giri told the Supreme Court that promotions in the Higher Judicial Service hinge on seniority but must also respect merit and experience. The Bench, led by CJI BR Gavai, is weighing how to balance promotee and direct recruit judges in career progression.
New Delhi: A five-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, on Tuesday concluded the hearing in the All India Judges Association case, which could reshape the promotion system for District Judges across India.
The Bench heard detailed arguments on whether a quota or reservation should be introduced for Civil Judges (Junior Division) in District Judge posts to prevent stagnation and ensure fair career progression in the judiciary.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Sidharth Bhatnagar, appearing as Amicus Curiae, began by referring to the earlier reference order and highlighted the long-standing challenges faced by Civil Judges who begin at the entry level and serve for years before getting a promotion.
Bhatnagar explained that judges starting as Civil Judges gain extensive experience, and all judicial officers—whether promoted or directly recruited—aspire to reach the High Court.
He said the system must
“strike a balance between these two categories of officers so that both have equal prospects for advancement.”
He further said that to maintain “a balance between these competing claims,” the issue should be settled by a five-judge Constitution Bench to ensure a consistent and lasting resolution applicable to all States.
Highlighting the root of the problem, Bhatnagar said that cadre disparity within the judiciary was first noted by the First National Judicial Pay Commission, which had expressed concern about the existing promotion system.
He emphasized that in most States, promotions are largely based on seniority rather than merit, which leads to dissatisfaction among efficient officers who are often overlooked despite their performance.
According to Bhatnagar,
“In most States, the same roster applies across the cadre, and since merit is often judged only through ACRs where everyone is rated ‘Good’ or ‘Very Good,’ seniority becomes the deciding factor.”
The Amicus informed the Court that promotee judges, despite having 20–25 years or more of judicial experience, face serious disadvantages due to the roster point system that governs seniority. He said this system often prevents them from being considered for senior posts such as Principal District Judge.
He also pointed out that promotee judges join the higher judicial service at an older age, leading to early superannuation. As a result, even if they are senior to direct recruits, they often retire before becoming eligible for higher promotions.
This imbalance, Bhatnagar noted, results in the upper tiers of the judiciary being dominated by direct recruits, thereby reducing the chances of promotee judges when it comes to elevation to the High Court or other higher posts.
Citing the Justice Shetty Commission Report, he illustrated the age disparity between promotees and direct recruits:
- Andhra Pradesh: Promotees – 48 years | Direct recruits – 39 years
- Assam: Promotees – 51 years | Direct recruits – 38 years
- Bihar: Promotees – 54 years | Direct recruits – 41 years
However, Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that in Kerala, five High Court judges entered through direct recruitment and are around 49 years old, suggesting that the Commission’s data might not reflect the current reality.
ALSO READ: “Ellarigu Namaskara”: Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju Takes Oath as Karnataka High Court Judge
Bhatnagar assured the Bench that he would verify and update the Kerala figures. Justice Chandran also noted that in Bihar, a promotee typically takes nearly 17 years to become a District Judge, showing a significant delay in career advancement.
The Amicus added that after the rule mandating three years of practice before entry into the judiciary, the average age of promotee officers increased further by around three years.
He also referred to the recent ruling allowing judicial officers with seven years of prior experience to qualify for the District Judge post, emphasizing that these factors should be considered in service calculations.
During the hearing, Justice Surya Kant raised an important concern:
“If such a strong preference is given to seniority among direct recruits, our junior judicial officers may end up focusing solely on preparing for the District Judge examination rather than performing their current duties.”
He further remarked,
“The 25% departmental quota was introduced to reward merit. But if the post is to be filled purely on the basis of length of service, where does that incentive go? Are you suggesting that even the senior-most District Judge won’t get that advantage? Then what motivation remains for me—or anyone else—to strive for excellence if promotions depend only on seniority?”
During the continued hearing, Amicus Sidharth Bhatnagar presented structured suggestions to balance promotions within the judicial hierarchy. He proposed that within the 25% direct recruitment quota, there should be an equal distribution—50% for direct recruits and 50% for promotees.
However, he explained that the District Judge cadre is divided into 50% at the entry level, 35% at the selection grade, and 15% at the super time scale.
Bhatnagar warned that applying the 1:1 ratio uniformly across all levels would leave no direct recruits at the entry level, so he suggested restricting it to the super time scale, where promotee judges could benefit.
In response, Justice Surya Kant asked:
“What incentive remains for an officer to work hard and clear the exam if, at the end, seniority and higher pay benefits go only one way?”
Clarifying, Bhatnagar said:
“So, we are not asking for quota at the entry level — only at the super time scale.”
He explained that when a junior Civil Judge clears the Limited Competitive (LC) Exam, they directly enter the District Judge cadre and become senior to existing promotees, disrupting balance at lower levels.
His second suggestion sought fairness in promotions by proposing that if 30 candidates are considered, 15 should be promotees and 15 direct recruits to give both groups equal opportunity.
However, Justice Joymalya Bagchi cautioned that such an approach might “create a cadre within a cadre.”
He observed,
“While a quota can be considered, if we fragment the cadre into groups, we’ll end up with a stratified hierarchy instead of a uniform one.”
Bhatnagar added that several States, including Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tamil Nadu, Sikkim, Uttarakhand, West Bengal, Delhi, and Jammu & Kashmir, already have a higher number of promotee officers, sometimes even outnumbering direct recruits.
ALSO READ: Farmer Protest Remark| Kangana Ranaut Gets Bail in Punjab Defamation Case
Justice Chandran remarked that earlier data might not reflect the current reality:
“The officers in your charts joined at 27–28 years when practice was mandatory. Now they enter at 23. The entire age profile has changed.”
Justice Bagchi further said,
“A District Judge, whether promotee or direct recruit, gains equal experience once in office. Counting their earlier Civil Judge experience again would amount to a double benefit.”
He also warned that a merit-based restructuring could restrict the High Courts’ constitutional powers under Articles 233–235 to make independent selections.
Adding another perspective, Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija, representing the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) officers, said:
“We are the grade sandwiched between two stones — the benefit meant for us is not reaching us because High Courts treat us as part of the promotee group.”
She explained that in most rosters, direct recruits are placed first and the cycle restarts with each new selection, pushing others down.
She said,
“The rule allows parity, but the way it’s applied breaks that balance,”
Citing Uttar Pradesh as an example, she argued that seniority is being decided by continuity of service rather than cadre-wise classification, which violates the rules.
ALSO READ: Jammu Court Summons BCCI Chief Mithun Manhas in Defamation Case Over JKCA Row
Makhija reminded the Court that all selections after 2002 must comply with the amended rules issued after the All India Judges’ Case, stating:
“My humble submission is that all selections post-2002 should be tested against those judicially mandated guidelines.”
She also criticized the four alternatives proposed by the Amicus, calling them “half measures, not complete solutions.” According to her, the real issue lies not in the method but in its inconsistent application by High Courts.
Raising a crucial point, she questioned whether the quota should be calculated on posts or vacancies, stressing that merit — particularly for the LDCE category — must result in real advancement.
She concluded emotionally:
“If I take the exam and still remain where I was, what incentive do I have to improve?”
She added that many who clear the LC Exam end up lower in seniority instead of advancing.
After a detailed discussion and a series of passionate arguments, the Bench rose for lunch, reserving further deliberation for the next sitting.
When the Bench resumed, Senior Advocate V.V. Giri began his submissions, explaining that promotions in the Higher Judicial Service generally follow the principle of seniority, though merit and ability are also taken into account.
He identified the core issue as determining how seniority should be fixed between promotee and direct recruit judges.
Giri further explained that although 25% of vacancies are earmarked for direct recruitment every year, procedural delays and ongoing litigation often postpone these appointments to the following year.
In contrast, promotee vacancies are typically filled without delay, creating an imbalance in the timing of appointments.
He clarified that forming a “cadre within a cadre” is not permitted under the rules laid down in the All India Judges’ Association and Malik Mazhar Sultan cases.
However, he proposed that High Courts could be allowed to give limited weightage to promotees for their long service, ensuring their experience is acknowledged without altering the existing roster system.
Giri also highlighted the age disparity between the two groups, noting that promotees usually enter service much younger—between 23 and 30 years—and reach the higher judicial cadre around the age of 48, whereas direct recruits typically enter at 40–42 years.
He added that appointments to the post of Principal District Judge ultimately depend on the administrative discretion of the High Court.
The Bench will continue the hearing tomorrow.
Case Title:
All India Judges Association v. Union of India
Read Live Coverage:
Click Here to Read More Reports On All India Judges Association case.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
