Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court has set aside the termination orders of two women judicial officers from Madhya Pradesh and directed their reinstatement with all consequential benefits, while specifying that no back wages will be granted. The bench, comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, considered the legality of their termination by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and found procedural deficiencies in the process.

The case involved six women judicial officers from the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service who were terminated during their probation period. Following reconsideration by the Full Court of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, four of them were reinstated. However, the termination of Sarita Choudhary and Aditi Kumar Sharma was not revoked. The Supreme Court examined the records and determined that their termination orders could not be sustained.

The matter originated from a resolution passed by the Full Court of the Madhya Pradesh High Court on May 13, 2023, recommending the termination of six women Civil Judges (Junior Division) based on their service records, annual confidential reports (ACRs), and other performance assessments. Subsequently, a representation was submitted to the Chief Justice of India, alleging that the dismissals were arbitrary and violative of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994. In response, the Supreme Court registered a suo motu writ petition to examine the legality of these terminations.

During the proceedings, the High Court reconsidered its decision and reinstated four of the six dismissed officers with conditions that they would remain on probation for an additional year, without back wages, and would be placed at the bottom of their respective batch. However, the termination of Sarita Choudhary and Aditi Kumar Sharma was upheld by the High Court, citing adverse performance reports, complaints, and other administrative concerns.

The Supreme Court examined the service records, ACRs, and grounds cited for the termination of the two officers. It was noted that the termination orders relied on adverse entries in the ACRs, some of which were communicated to the officers only after their dismissal. The Court stated, "The non-communication of adverse remarks prior to termination renders the decision procedurally deficient and contrary to the principles of natural justice."

The Court noted that probationers do not have a vested right to confirmation but held that any assessment of their suitability must be conducted fairly, reasonably, and in accordance with established procedures. It stated, "Such an assessment must be fair, reasonable, and in accordance with established procedures, ensuring that the probationer is given an opportunity to address any concerns before termination."

Regarding Sarita Choudhary, the Court noted that her overall service trajectory indicated improvement despite administrative remarks. Similarly, in the case of Aditi Kumar Sharma, the Court observed that her service record reflected mitigating circumstances, including health concerns and personal challenges, which were not duly considered by the High Court.

The judgment also addressed concerns regarding gender equity in judicial appointments, stating, "While gender is not a justification for excusing poor performance, it remains an important consideration in ensuring a fair and equitable work environment for women in the judiciary."

Based on these findings, the Supreme Court issued directives regarding their reinstatement. The termination orders against Sarita Choudhary and Aditi Kumar Sharma, including the resolutions dated May 13, 2023, and subsequent government orders, were set aside. The Court directed their reinstatement within fifteen days from the date of the judgment to prevent any further administrative delays. The judgment further stated, "The petitioners herein are reinstated in their service with all consequential benefits, subject to the following conditions."

The Court held that their probation period should be deemed completed as of the date their juniors were confirmed in service. This decision ensures that their career progression is not adversely affected by the termination. It was also directed that their monetary benefits for the period between termination and reinstatement would be considered notionally for pensionary and other consequential service benefits. The Court specified, "While the petitioners would not be entitled to back wages for the period between their termination and reinstatement, their monetary benefits for that period would be considered notionally for pensionary and other consequential service benefits."

Additionally, the Court directed that any complaints against the petitioners, which were previously kept in abeyance due to their termination, could be addressed through proper legal and procedural frameworks, ensuring that they are given due process before any adverse action is taken. The judgment stated, "Any complaints against the petitioners, which were previously kept in abeyance due to their termination, may be dealt with in accordance with the law."

The judgment stated, "These officers on regaining their original seniority as stated above, shall be granted continuity in service and all consequential benefits except back wages."

Before concluding, the judgment expressed appreciation for the assistance of Sri Gaurav Agrawal, learned senior advocate and Amicus Curiae, appointed by the Chief Justice of India, for his effective contribution in adjudicating the cases.

Case Title: Saritha Choudhary Vs High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Anr and connected matters

Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 289

Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 142 of 2024 and connected petitions

                       & Suo Moto Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2 of 2023

Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

[Read/Download order]