Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Full Bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that no special quota or additional weightage can be created for promotee officers in appointments to posts in the Higher Judicial Service, finding no national pattern showing disproportionate representation of direct recruits. Addressing concerns raised by some officers, the Court stated that a sense of dissatisfaction alone cannot justify altering the structure of the cadre or introducing distinctions among entrants. It further clarified that once officers enter the common District Judge cadre through regular promotion, the limited competitive examination or direct recruitment, seniority must be assigned strictly through the annual roster, and the original mode of entry ceases to have relevance.

The interlocutory application was filed in long-pending proceedings concerning the structure and functioning of the Higher Judicial Service (HJS) across all States. The application sought reconsideration of the principles governing inter se seniority among three categories of District Judges: Regular Promotees (RPs), officers promoted through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), and Direct Recruits (DRs). These three entry streams had earlier been established through directions issued in successive All India Judges Association (AIJA) matters.

Also Read: Justice Bhuyan Cites “Deadly Delhi Smog” In Dissent Opposing Supreme Court Move Toward Post-Facto EC, Says Court Must Not Retreat From Established Environmental Principles

The Amicus Curiae submitted that an anomalous situation had arisen in several States, where many officers entering the service as Civil Judges were unable to progress to the posts of Principal District Judge or beyond. The Amicus placed four suggestions intended to address concerns about career stagnation and to balance merit with experience. These included proposals relating to quota in higher grades, the zone of consideration, weightage based on years of service, and creation of separate seniority lists. The application also referred to concerns expressed in prior AIJA proceedings and by the Shetty Commission regarding disproportionate progression across the three streams of entry.

Responses were filed by various States, Union Territories, Registrar Generals of High Courts, and other stakeholders. These submissions outlined existing statutory rules for career progression within each State’s judiciary. Several High Courts also provided statistical data reflecting the prevailing composition of the HJS and the distribution of RPs, LDCE officers, and DRs.

Counsel representing RPs contended that DRs entered service at a younger age and therefore progressed more quickly through the cadre. They argued that longer judicial experience at the lower rungs should be recognised for seniority purposes. They also asserted that the induction of DRs created a sense of dissatisfaction among promotee officers. The LDCE group supported these arguments and added that vacancies earmarked for LDCE candidates should be preserved and carried forward rather than filled by promotees.

Also Read: Boarding Wrong Train Not A Bar To Bona Fide Passenger Status: Supreme Court Says Railways Can’t Deny Compensation And Orders ₹8 Lakh In Railway Accident Claim

On the other hand, counsel for DRs submitted that seniority was already determined through a roster-based system applied uniformly at the entry stage. They argued that once officers entered the HJS, the source of recruitment ceased to be relevant and further progression was based on merit-cum-seniority within the cadre. They also asserted that seniority rules should continue to be administered by High Courts, which were better placed to evaluate State-specific conditions.

Multiple High Courts furnished statistics on the distribution of officers among the three streams, indicating variations across States. These figures were placed before the Court to illustrate existing patterns in cadre structure and the functioning of the seniority roster.

The Court recorded that similar controversies regarding seniority in the Higher Judicial Service had arisen earlier and continued to persist. It noted that the interlocutory application highlighted an “anomalous situation pertaining to the inter se seniority between District Judges (Direct Recruits) and District Judges (Promotees)” and that the issue required examination by a larger bench.

While considering its authority to frame guidelines, the Court stated that it faced “no constitutional impediment in exercising its unique power of judicial review under Article 32, read with other relevant provisions of the Constitution, including Articles 141 and 142, to lay down uniform guidelines governing the structure and functioning of the judicial services across the country.” It recorded that overarching directions were necessary to ensure “uniformity in the structure of judicial services” while recognising that implementation of such norms falls within the domain of the High Courts.

The Court stated that the feeling of dissatisfaction among some officers was insufficient to warrant a change in the seniority structure, noting that “perceived discontentment and heartburn without something more… cannot result in creating an artificial classification of members within a cadre.” It also recorded that statistical material placed before it did not establish a uniform trend, stating that “the statistical data is disparate and does not provide a substantial basis to find such discontentment and heartburn of RPs in the HJS, to be justified.” It further observed that “there is no common malady of disproportionate representation of DRs in the HJS… which afflict the Country as a whole.”

The Court explained the legal position regarding loss of source-based identity upon entering a common cadre, stating that officers “lose the ‘birthmark’ of the source from which they are recruited.” It recorded that experience in the lower judiciary could not be used as a basis for classification, noting that “the length and performance as a Civil Judge also does not constitute an intelligible differentia to classify incumbents in the common cadre.”

Regarding the functioning of the seniority system, the Court observed that a roster continues to be the appropriate method and stated that “preparation of a Roster is the most suitable method of determining seniority within the HJS.” It recorded the need for a uniform mechanism across States, noting that divergent roster formulations “is an affront to the ideal of uniformity within the judicial services.”

The Court also addressed delays in recruitment and their impact on seniority. It recorded that where appointments are made after completion of the process in the following year, officers “shall be placed at their respective roster points for the year of initiation,” subject to specified conditions. It stated that continuous service remains an important principle, while also acknowledging the need to avoid anomalies arising solely from procedural delays.

Also Read: IT Act | Bona Fide Error From Misprinted Bare Act Justifies Condonation: Bombay High Court Allows Delay In Form 9A Filing By Charitable Trust

Finally, the Court noted that broader changes triggered by recent decisions may eventually require reconsideration of the guidelines, stating that “the inter se position amongst RPs, LDCEs and DRs is likely to undergo substantial change… Such altered circumstances may necessitate a review, modification, or recall of the present directions.”

In this context, the Court found it necessary to exercise its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to set out the conclusions and to issue the directions that follow”

1. “Perceived discontentment and heartburn without something more in the form of a legal claim, illegal denial, or at least a legitimate expectation cannot result in creating an artificial classification of members within a cadre.”

2. “The statistical data is disparate and does not provide a substantial basis to find such discontentment and heartburn of RPs in the HJS, to be justified.”

3. “There is no common malady of disproportionate representation of DRs in the HJS such that it is diminishing the prospects of financial upgradation or designation as Principal District Judges to the promotees, which afflict the Country as a whole or make it imperative for this Court to resolve it, by giving a preference to RPs or LDCEs.”

4. “The data put forth in many States indicates a prevalence or equivalence of RPs in the HJS and key positions, which is natural since their ratio is 3/4th of the total posts in the cadre.”

5. “On the entry into a common cadre from different sources (RP, LDCE and DR) and assignment of seniority as per the annual roster, the incumbents lose their ‘birthmark’ of the source from which they are recruited.”

6. “Fixation in the Selection Grade and Super Time Scale within the HJS is based on the merit-cum-seniority within the cadre and cannot depend upon the length of service or performance in the lower rungs of the Judiciary; the latter loses its significance after RPs and LDCEs, by its virtue, are propelled into the HJS.”

7. “The length and performance as a Civil Judge also does not constitute an intelligible differentia to classify incumbents in the common cadre of District Judge and the classification made in Triloki Nath Khosa… stands on a different footing.”

8. “Individual career aspirations are a normal incidence of service, accentuated only by better performance; they are not connected to the objective of an independent and strengthened judiciary and cannot guide the shape of the rules of seniority.”

9. “Sufficient accelerated opportunities are provided for Members of the Judicial Service entering into the lower rungs, for career advancement… enabling the reckoning of their service for direct recruitment to HJS and… facilitating fast-track promotions.”

10. “The seniority of officers within the HJS shall be determined through an annual 4-point roster, filled by all officers appointed in the particular year in the repeating sequence of 2 RPs, 1 LDCE, and 1 DR.”

11. “Only if the recruitment process is completed within the year after which it was initiated and no other appointments… have already taken place… shall the officers belatedly so appointed be entitled to seniority as per the roster of the year in which recruitment was initiated.”

12. “If the recruitment process is not initiated for vacancies arising in a given year in the same year, the candidate filling such vacancy… shall be granted seniority within the annual roster of the year in which the recruitment process is finally concluded and appointment is made.”

13. “After the recruitment of DRs and LDCEs is complete for a particular year, the positions falling in their quota that remain unfilled… shall be filled through RPs, subject to such RPs being placed only on subsequent RP positions in the annual roster.”

14. “The statutory rules governing the HJS in the respective States, in consultation with the High Courts, shall prescribe the exact modalities of the Annual Roster and how the directions of this judgement shall be implemented.”

Also Read: “It’s A Mess”: Delhi HC Slams BCI On Foreign Law Firm Rules; Cautions Against ‘Castigating’ CMS IndusLaw & Dentons; Interim Bar Extended

The Court directed: “The respective States / Union Territory Administrations are hereby also directed to undertake appropriate amendments in their respective statutory rules, in consultation with the High Court, to bring them in consonance with the guidelines laid down in this judgment, within a period of three months.”

“The question framed by us is thus answered in the above terms. The instant Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. I.A. Nos. 269261 and 270515/2025 also stand disposed of.”

Case Title: All India Judges Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1328
Case Number: I.A. No. 230675/2025 in W.P. (C) No. 1022 of 1989
Bench: Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Justice Joymalya Bagchi