Reservation for Civil Judges | Day 3: “Age gap will affect progression even if roster works,” submits amicus as Bench reserves judgement
Reservation for Civil Judges in Principal District Judge postsJudges: B.R. Gavai J, Surya Kant J, Vikram Nath J, K.V. Chandran J, Joymalya Bagchi J
Today, a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai reserved judgement after concluding arguments on the question of reservation and inter-se seniority in appointments to the post of Principal District Judge.
The matter arises out of the All India Judges Association (1989) case and was referred on 7 October after a two-judge Bench of CJI Gavai and Justice K.V. Chandran noted concerns of promotion stagnation and uneven seniority structures within the Higher Judicial Service.
On 28 October, the petitioners and the amicus curiae highlighted how age gaps and uneven scheduling of recruitment cycles have led to “bunching that limits opportunities for direct recruits to reach senior positions.
On 29 October, multiple High Courts urged the Bench to avoid imposing strict uniformity, stressing that they require discretion as cadre structures and service profiles vary significantly across states.
Senior Advocate P.S. Patwalia appeared for the Delhi High Court. Senior Advocates Jaideep Gupta, Jayant Bhushan, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Rajiv Shakdher and Vipin Sanghi made submissions on behalf of intervenors and other affected officers. Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar assisted the Court as amicus, while Senior Advocate Vibha Datta Makhija addressed the Bench on behalf of officers appointed through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) quota.
Seniority at entry and the relevance of prior service
Resuming from Day 2, Patwalia submitted that officers who enter the District Judge cadre, whether through promotion, direct recruitment or the LDCE, form a single cadre performing the same judicial functions. He argued that classification based solely on the mode of entry amounts to distinguishing officers based on a “birthmark” and is not a valid basis for determining seniority.
Gupta submitted that the roster introduced after the All India Judges (2002) case, already fixes seniority at entry, forming a 75:25 ratio with the first two roster points allotted to promotees and the next three to direct recruits. He cautioned against granting weightage for years spent in the lower judiciary on the grounds that it would systematically favour those with longer pre-entry service.
Bhushan referred to Indra Sawhney v Union of India (1992), submitting that if promotion is treated as part of reservation, competition may effectively occur within categories and lead to internal segmentation. He suggested that if prior judicial service is considered relevant, it should be recognised consistently across all entry streams, and not selectively.
The issue of irregular recruitment
Discussing the effect of irregular recruitment, Justice Surya Kant asked what happens when “due to unforeseen reasons direct recruitment does not happen for four or five years”.
This led several counsel to address “bunching” which occurs when multiple officers enter the cadre at once due to delayed recruitment, compressing seniority levels and altering progression timelines.
Gupta submitted that the impact of the roster must be understood state-wise and noted the example of West Bengal which currently has 32 promotees and 27 direct recruits. He stated that while roster proportions may be reflected at the entry stage, progression depends on how recruitment cycles align over time.
Sanghi suggested that eligibility be determined according to the year in which the vacancy arises, rather than the year the recruitment process is completed, stating that this would reduce distortion. He observed that regular recruitment could stabilise the system without further structural change.
Age disparity and progression at higher scales
Bhatnagar submitted that even if the roster functions as intended at the point of entry, the age differential between promotee officers and direct recruits will still influence career progression, eligibility for financial upgradation and selection grade. He stated that this concern is structural, tied to the stage of entry rather than to the roster itself.
Makhija submitted that periods of bunching affect the intended purpose of the LCDE route, pushing seniority downwards for officers who seek to benefit from merit-based advancement.
The Bench noted that each entry stream already has designated roster points and found that the primary question relates to the interaction of recruitment cycles with those placements.