Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | W.P.(C) No.-001022-001022 – 1989 |
| Diary Number | 60181/1989 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE |
| Bench | Constitution Bench of five judges |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Service / Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law | What should be the criteria for determining seniority in the cadre of Higher Judicial Services? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
Seniority in the HJS must be determined within a common cadre on the basis of inter se date of appointment via an annual roster uniformly applied across States. On entry into the HJS, officers lose any “birthmark” of their feeder category (Regular Promotee, LDCE, Direct Recruit), so prior service in the feeder cadre cannot affect seniority in the HJS. Advancement beyond entry is by merit-cum-seniority within the HJS alone. A 4-point roster—two promotees, one LDCE, one direct recruit—repeats annually to allocate seniority slots. Delayed appointees may occupy their original roster slots if absorbed before the next recruitment year, and unfilled quotas may be filled by promotees without altering roster positions. High Courts must incorporate these mandatory guidelines into their statutory service rules. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The HJS comprises officers from three streams—Regular Promotees (RP), LDCE, Direct Recruits (DR)—whose inter se seniority had been fixed by varying State rosters, causing recurring anomalies. An interlocutory application (I.A. No. 230675/2025) pointed to “heartburn” among promotees due to age and feeder service differences. A five-judge Constitution Bench was constituted to answer: “What should be the criteria for determining seniority in the cadre of Higher Judicial Services?” The Court reviewed decades of AIJA rulings, State statistics, and stakeholder submissions, and formulated uniform guidelines to resolve the controversy once and for all. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All State Governments and High Courts (must amend service rules within three months) |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, subordinate courts in service-seniority disputes |
| Overrules | The 40-point roster system under the Fourth AIJA |
| Distinguishes | Claims that feeder-cadre service should determine HJS seniority (e.g., Mervyn Coutindo; Roshan Lal Tandon) |
| Follows | AIJA precedents (First through Sixth AIJA decisions) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Introduction of a uniform annual 4-point roster (2 RPs, 1 LDCE, 1 DR) for determining inter se seniority in the HJS.
- Clarification that officers lose any “birthmark” of feeder-cadre service on entry to the HJS; prior service cannot influence seniority or fixation in higher grades.
- Detailed rules for handling delayed appointments: those effected within the following year may still occupy their original roster slots if no later-year appointments intervene.
- Mechanism for filling unfilled DR/LDCE vacancies by promotees in the same recruitment year, without altering roster positions.
- Mandatory directive to States/High Courts to amend statutory service rules within three months to implement these guidelines.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Constitutional Powers and AIJA Trajectory
- The Court under Articles 32, 141, 142 has repeatedly issued uniform directives for judicial service structure (First through Sixth AIJA).
- Articles 233–235 confer superintendence on High Courts but do not bar the Supreme Court from framing binding national guidelines.
-
Equality and Loss of “Birthmark”
- On fusion into a common cadre, officers lose the source-based “birthmark.” Classification based on feeder service (RP vs. DR) lacks a reasonable nexus and violates Articles 14, 16 (Roshan Lal Tandon; Triloki Nath Khosa).
-
Addressing “Heartburn”
- Promotees’ grievance over age/service advantage for DRs does not justify a separate quota; existing accelerated promotion channels (LDCE, direct recruitment under Rejanish K.V.) already mitigate discontent.
-
Roster Methodology
- A roster remains the best tool to implement proportional representation (50:25:25). A simplified 4-point roster is mandated to ensure uniformity and address anomalies.
- Delayed appointments and unfilled quotas are accommodated by specific roster-slot rules.
-
Statutory Implementation
- The Court’s guidelines must be incorporated into statutory service rules by States/High Courts to give them full effect.
Arguments by the Parties
Amicus Curiae (All India Judges Association / RPs / LDCEs)
- Highlighted “anomalous” stagnation and age-advantage for DRs leading to “heartburn.”
- Proposed four solutions:
- 1:1 quota for senior grades
- Equal zone of consideration
- Seniority weightage for feeder service
- Separate seniority lists (50:25:25)
- Sought recognition of prior feeder service and preservation of roster rosters when quotas go unfilled.
Direct Recruits and State/High Court Respondents
- No need for preferential treatment; inter se seniority varies by State.
- Once in HJS, feeder-cadre service is irrelevant—seniority, higher grade fixation, and administrative duties turn on service within HJS and merit.
- State Governments and High Courts are best placed to set service rules based on local statistics and conditions.
Factual Background
- The Higher Judicial Service (HJS) cadres in all States draw appointments from Regular Promotees (RPs), Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations (LDCE), and Direct Recruits (DR).
- Decades of divergent State rosters produced anomalies in inter se seniority, adversely affecting promotees’ career progression.
- An interlocutory application (I.A. No. 230675/2025) filed by learned Amicus Curiae prompted this five-judge bench to revisit and settle the seniority criteria once and for all.
Statutory Analysis
- Articles 233–235: High Courts’ power of superintendence over subordinate judiciary.
- Article 309 (service rules): Subject to Articles 233–235; States/Governor must consult High Courts.
- Articles 141, 142: Supreme Court’s binding jurisdiction to frame uniform judicial service guidelines.
- Articles 14, 16: Equality guarantees prohibit classification that favors one source over another absent reasonable nexus.
Procedural Innovations
- Establishes a simplified 4-point annual roster system for HJS seniority.
- Prescribes rules for handling delayed recruitments across calendar years without prejudicing continuous service seniority.
- Mandates statutory amendments in service rules within three months under Article 142.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – upholds and refines AIJA judgments.
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – replaces the 40-point roster with a new 4-point annual roster.