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 |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Affirms / Overrules | Affirms Fourth, Fifth and Sixth AIJA precedents; rejects creation of separate quotas |
| Type of Law | Constitutional and service jurisprudence |
| Questions of Law | What should be the criteria for determining seniority in the cadre of Higher Judicial Services? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that upon appointment to a common cadre of District Judge from Regular Promotees (RP), LDCE or Direct Recruits (DR), incumbents lose any “birthmark” of recruitment source. Inter se seniority must be fixed annually by a repeating 4-point roster (2 RP, 1 LDCE, 1 DR), irrespective of exact appointment dates within the recruitment year. Appointments delayed into the following year may be slotted into the original roster if completed before that year’s fresh intake. Unfilled LDCE/DR vacancies in a given year may be filled by RP, but only in RP positions, and future vacancy computation must maintain a 50:25:25 ratio. No separate quotas or weightage may be created for career advancement. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Higher Judicial Service (HJS) cadre comprises Regular Promotees (RP), LDCE promotees and Direct Recruits (DR). An interlocutory application raised “heartburn” among RPs/LDCEs over slower progression and younger DRs’ advantage. This Court, invoking its Constitution Bench jurisdiction, framed the singular question of criteria for HJS seniority and considered decades of AIJA directions, service rules, stakeholder submissions and statistical data. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All High Courts and State/Union Territory administrations to amend statutory HJS rules accordingly |
| Follows | Sixth AIJA (2025); Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa |
| Overrules | None (rejects new quotas without overruling existing precedents) |
| Distinguishes | Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India on “birthmark” principle—upheld loss of source-based classification upon cadre fusion |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Introduces a uniform annual 4-point roster (2 RP : 1 LDCE : 1 DR) for determining inter se seniority in HJS.
- Confirms that upon entry, all appointees lose any “birthmark” of recruitment source; no separate quotas or weightage are permissible.
- Provides that DR appointments delayed into the next year may still slot into the original roster if completed before that year’s recruitment begins.
- Directs that unfilled LDCE/DR vacancies in a year may be filled by RP candidates but only in RP roster slots, preserving future 50 : 25 : 25 vacancy computation.
- Mandates High Courts and State/UT administrations to amend service rules within three months to integrate these guidelines.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Constitutional Power & AIJA Trajectory – SC’s authority under Articles 32, 141, 142 to issue uniform judicial‐service guidelines; reviewed First through Sixth AIJA decisions refining recruitment ratios and entry qualifications.
- High Court Superintendence – Articles 233–235 vest general superintendence of State judiciary with High Courts; SC guidelines do not displace but frame a common framework.
- Heartburn Argument Assessed – “Heartburn” among RPs/LDCEs over younger DRs’ ascendancy lacks legal merit; existing accelerated promotion and direct‐recruitment routes address concerns.
- Loss of “Birthmark” on Cadre Fusion – Reliance on Mervyn Coutindo and Roshan Lal Tandon to confirm that upon entry to a common cadre, source‐based classification is impermissible under equality guarantees.
- Roster System Refined – Four-point annual roster (2 RP, 1 LDCE, 1 DR) adopted to secure uniformity; mechanism for handling delayed appointments and filling unfilled quotas ensures continuity without arbitrary seniority gains.
- Vacancy Diversion & Future Ratio Preservation – Permits RP to fill unfilled LDCE/DR vacancies only in RP roster positions, maintaining overall 50 : 25 : 25 cadre composition.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners (Regular Promotees & LDCE)
- RP service at Junior/Senior Division merits weightage over Bar or direct entry; “heartburn” from younger DRs’ advantage.
- Prior judicial service superior to Bar experience (citing Rejanish K.V.).
- Propose quotas (1 : 1) or seniority weightage of up to three years for RPs.
Respondents (Direct Recruits & State/UT Administrations)
- DRs’ merit‐based entry and younger age advantage legitimate; feeder‐cadre service loses relevance upon HJS entry.
- Inter se seniority best regulated by High Courts via service statistics and existing roster rules.
- Oppose new quotas or source‐based seniority, emphasizing merit‐cum‐seniority in HJS cadre.
Factual Background
Higher Judicial Services comprise officers from three recruitment streams: Regular Promotees (RPs), Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) promotees and Direct Recruits (DRs). An Amicus-led application highlighted anomalous seniority claims—perceived “heartburn” among long-serving promotees when younger DRs advance faster. This interlocutory application prompted the Supreme Court to examine decades of AIJA precedents, state‐wise rules and data, and to frame a constitution bench determination on a uniform criterion for HJS seniority.
Statutory Analysis
- Articles 233–235: High Court’s superintendence over State judiciary, consultation requirement in service rules.
- Articles 14/16: Equality of opportunity prohibits classification based solely on recruitment source.
- Article 32 & 142: SC’s power to issue binding guidelines for judicial service structure.
- AIJA directions: Ratios (50 : 25 : 25, 65 : 10 : 25) and feeder‐cadre qualifications evolved through First to Sixth AIJA.
Procedural Innovations
- Uniform 4-point annual roster for seniority assignments.
- Rule for slotting delayed appointees into original recruitment‐year roster.
- Mechanism for diverting unfilled LDCE/DR vacancies to RPs, preserving future ratio.
- Mandatory timeline (three months) for service‐rule amendments by States/UTs in consultation with High Courts.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Reinforces AIJA jurisprudence and established roster principles.