‘No artificial classes within District Judge cadre’: SC lays down national seniority framework
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 delivered its ruling in the long-running All India Judges Association matter, which has, since 1989, served as the platform for nationwide judicial service reforms. The Court examined complaints of stagnation in promotions and inconsistent practices in recognising seniority in the Higher Judicial Service (HJS). Civil Judges and Senior Civil Judges across several states had raised concerns about limited avenues to reach the post of Principal District Judge.
The Bench held that officers entering the District Judge cadre through regular promotion, the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) and direct recruitment form a single unified cadre. They laid down mandatory national guidelines to govern seniority.
CJI Gavai stressed that the guidelines issued by the Bench are not meant to reopen or unsettle any settled seniority disputes. They operate prospectively and are intended to bring uniformity across states whose service rules vary widely.
Rejecting claims of systemic disadvantage to regular promotees, CJI Gavai noted that the Court was not presented with any statistical evidence to justify the “discontentment” or “heartburn” claimed by a section of officers awaiting promotion. On the contrary, data from many states showed equal or proportionate representation of regular promotees at key levels, an outcome the Court described as “natural” given that promotees constitute three-fourths of the cadre strength nationwide.
CJI Gavai noted that once an officer enters the District Judge cadre, the ‘birthmark’ of the source of recruitment disappears. Seniority and career progression must be based solely on the common cadre, not on performance or length of service in the lower judiciary. Years spent as a Civil Judge cannot become a basis for classification within the HJS as such criteria would undermine uniformity and distort the structure of the service.
Annual 4-point roster and prospective rule changes for all states
To ensure consistency going forward, the Court mandated a uniform annual four-point roster that all states and High Courts must adopt in their statutory frameworks. The sequence will be:
(2) Regular Promotee
(1) LDCE Officer
(1) Direct Recruit
This list represents the fixed order in which seniority slots will be assigned each year. The first two positions in the roster will go to regular promotees, the third to an LDCE officer and the fourth to a direct recruit, after which the sequence restarts.
This sequence will repeat every year, forming the foundational structure for determining seniority. Only officers whose recruitment process is completed within that year will be slotted into that year’s roster. If the process spills over to the next year, the officer will obtain seniority in the year in which appointment is actually issued, irrespective of when the vacancy originally arose.
Next, the Court addressed the issue of years where LDCE or direct recruitment candidates are not available. The Court held that unfilled positions may be temporarily filled by promotees. However, such promotees must be placed only against the next available promotee position in the roster, ensuring that distribution across streams remains intact over successive recruitment cycles.
The Court directed that all states, Union Territories and High Courts must amend their service rules within three months to implement the roster and integrate the guidelines into their statutory frameworks. Modalities of implementation, including calculation of annual vacancies and sequencing, must be finalised by each state in consultation with its High Court.