Supreme Court Rejects Quota for Promotee Judges in District Judge Posts, Sets New Guidelines for Seniority

The Supreme Court in All India Judges Association vs Union of India ruled that judicial officers cannot get any special quota or extra weightage for appointments to the post of District Judge. The Court said there is no consistent national pattern that shows direct recruits dominate the Higher Judicial Service (HJS), and therefore, there is no need to create a separate category or advantage for promotee officers.

A Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice BR Gavai clarified that once candidates from all three entry route (Regular Promotion (RP), Limited Departmental Competitive Exam (LDCE), and Direct Recruitment (DR)) enter the common cadre, they lose the “birthmark” of their recruitment source. Seniority must follow the annual roster and not personal expectations or earlier service in lower positions.

The Court said that promotions to Selection Grade and Super Time Scale depend on merit-cum-seniority within the HJS. Performance as a Civil Judge cannot be used to create a separate class within the District Judge cadre. The bench stressed that individual aspirations are understandable but cannot influence seniority rules.

The Court also noted that judicial officers already have enough opportunities for progression. After the Rejanish judgment, in-service judges can now compete for direct recruitment as District Judges, and the qualifying service for promotion as Civil Judge (Senior Division) has also been reduced.

Key Guidelines on Seniority (Issued under Article 142)

1. Annual 4-point roster: Seniority will follow a repeating cycle each year — 2 Regular Promotees, 1 LDCE candidate, and 1 Direct Recruit.
2. Late appointments: If a recruitment cycle finishes late but no other appointments for the next year have happened, those selected will still get seniority for the year the recruitment began.
3. Delayed recruitment initiation: If recruitment is not started in the same year as the vacancy, the candidate filling that vacancy later will get seniority for the year in which the recruitment process actually concludes.
4. Unfilled DR/LDCE slots: Their remaining positions will be filled by RPs, but they will be placed only on subsequent RP positions in the roster.
5. State Rules to be updated: Each State’s rules, in consultation with the High Court, must define how this annual roster will operate.
   

The Court clarified that these guidelines are general in nature and will not reopen already settled seniority disputes. They may be revised in the future if needed.

The judgment came in the All India Judges Association v. Union of India case, where a 5-judge bench examined whether judicial officers who enter the system at the lowest level face career stagnation and require a quota in District Judge posts.

Amicus Curiae’s Four Suggestions (For Better Promotion Prospects)

Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar had submitted four possible models to help promotee judges:

1. 1:1 quota between promotee and direct recruit District Judges for higher posts like Selection Grade and Super Time Scale, with merit-cum-seniority applied within each group.
2. 50–50 zone of consideration for higher posts — half from direct recruits and half from promotees, with final selection on merit-cum-seniority.
3. Weightage for experience:
   One additional year of seniority for every 5 years of judicial service (up to 3 years), treating it as part of District Judge service.
4. Three separate seniority lists for RPs, LDCE promotees, and DRs in the ratio 50:25:25 for determining promotions to senior posts.

What Triggered the Reference to a Larger Bench?

The Court earlier noted that in many States, officers who start as Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) often do not reach the Principal District Judge rank. This discourages many talented candidates from joining the judiciary.

While the amicus pushed for a quota to solve this stagnation, some senior lawyers argued that this would unfairly restrict opportunities for meritorious direct recruits. The Court said a balance must be achieved and referred the matter to a Constitution Bench, as earlier conflicting judgments needed reconsideration.

The Bench emphasised that CJ-level officers gain rich experience over decades and have aspirations similar to direct recruits. A stable and long-term solution was required, not short-term adjustments.