Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 217

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
Dr. Kavita Kamboj – Appellant
Versus
High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 2179-2180 of 2024, Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos. 4004-4005 of 2024 (D No. 508 of 2024), Civil Appeal Nos. 2181-2182 of 2024, Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos. 4006-4007 of 2024 (D No. 677 of 2024), Civil Appeal No. 2183 of 2024, Arising Out of SLP (C) No 1031 of 2024, Civil Appeal Nos. 2184-2185 of 2024, Arising Out of SLP (C) Nos. 4008-4009 of 2024 (D No. 907 of 2024), Civil Appeal No. 2186 of 2024, Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 4010 of 2024 (D No. 1815 of 2024
Decided On : 13-02-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Vikramjit Banerjee, A.S.G. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. B.K. Satija, A.A.G. Ms. Shristi Jain Goyal, D.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, Adv. Mr. Bharat Sood, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Nikunj Gupta, Adv. Mr. P S Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Sr. Adv. Mr. Udayaditya Arpith, Adv. Ms. Trisha Chandran, Adv. Mr. Nishant Singh, AOR Mr. Udayaditya Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Arpith Jacob Varaprasad, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sidhant Awasthy, Adv. Mrs. Eliza Bar, Adv. Mr. Siddhant Saroha, Adv. Mr. Manav Bhalla, Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Tewari, AOR Mr. Rameshwar Singh Malik, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jaspreet Singh Rai, Adv. Mr. Rohit Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Jitesh Malik, Adv. Mr. Jasdeep Singh Dhillon, Adv. Mrs. Sukhdeep Kaur Rai, Adv. Mrs. Vasudha Gupta, Adv. Mrs. Vasudha Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Linoy Varghese, Adv. Mr. Ravi Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ankur Singh, Adv. Mr. Shwetabh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Shyamal Kumar, AOR

The High Court's revision of eligibility criteria for judicial promotions, requiring separate minimum marks in written and viva voce, is valid, distinguishing between different recruitment methods while upholding principles of merit and suitability.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 233, 234 and 235 - Promotion to the Higher Judicial Service - Challenge to the modification of eligibility criteria for promotions from Civil Judges to Additional District and Sessions Judges - High Court prescribed requirement of 50% marks independently in written test and viva voce, distinguishing from previous criteria of aggregate marks. (Paras 9, 29, 67)

(B) Judicial Appointments - Process and criteria for promotion - Distinction between recruitment by promotion and direct recruitment - Sufficient basis for differential treatment of candidates under various recruitment methods. (Paras 27, 39, 41)

(C) Consultation with the State Government - Requirement for appointment of District Judges and the administrative autonomy of the High Court in judicial appointments. (Paras 59, 66)

Facts of the case:
The appeals arose from a judgment of the High Court concerning promotions of in-service candidates as Additional District and Sessions Judges based on the amended eligibility requirements. A resolution was passed that candidates must secure at least 50% marks separately in both the written test and viva voce.

Findings of Court:
The High Court's decision to modify the eligibility criteria was upheld as not arbitrary, maintaining a valid distinction among recruitment methods based on merit and suitability.

Issues: Whether the High Court's imposed minimum eligibility cut-off for promotions introduced a discriminatory practice against candidates under the promotional quota.

Ratio Decidendi: The court underscored that distinct recruitment routes can legitimately impose different criteria, and that the High Court acted within its powers to revise eligibility standards while ensuring a meritocratic approach to judicial appointments.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. high court's recommendation for judicial appointments reviewed. (Para 2)
2. procedure for appointment by promotion defined (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. revised eligibility criteria for promotion (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. procedural requirements for promotions outlined. (Para 13)
5. controversy regarding candidates' promotion recommendations (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
6. union's opinion on eligibility criteria consultation (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
7. petition filed for mandamus on recommendations (Para 21 , 22)
8. arguments from candidates against eligibility criteria (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
9. historical context on recruitment procedures (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
10. classification of recruitment sources and evaluation methods (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38)
11. reasoning supporting eligibility cut-off requirements (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
12. administrative instructions can fill legal gaps (Para 46 , 47 , 48)
13. legitimacy of minimum cut-offs discussed (Para 57 , 58 , 59)
14. constitutional provisions on appointments and consultation (Para 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65)
15. affirmation of the high court's decision (Para 67 , 68 , 69)

JUDGMENT :

DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI.

Table of Contents
(A)	Background of the present dispute
(B)	Submissions
(C)	Analysis
(i)	All India Judges’ Association
(ii)	The Rules can be supplemented to fill in gaps
(iii)	Sivanandan CT
(iv)	Articles 233, 234 and 235 of the Constitution of India
(D)	Conclusion

1. Permission to file the Special Leave Petitions granted.

2. Leave granted.

3. This batch of appeals has arisen from a judgment delivered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana on 20 December 2023. The controversy that arises before this Court pertains to the recommendations made by the High Court on its administrative side for the appointment of thirteen in-service candidates as Additional District and Sessions Judges. These candidates are seeking recruitment to the post through promotions from the post of Senior Civil Judges against the 65% promotional quota under the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules 2007.¹ [“Rules”]

4. The Rules came into force on 10 January 2007 and regulate recruitment and service conditions of persons for appointment to the Haryana Superior Judicial Service. Part III of the Rules provides for the method of recruitment. Rule 2(b) defines “direct recruit” to mean a person who is appointed to the Service from the Bar. Likewise “promoted officer” is defined under Rule 2(i) to mean a person who is appointed to the service by promotion from Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch). Rule 5 provides that recruitment to the Service shall be made by the Governor by:

(ii) direct recruitment from amongst eligible advocates on the recommendations of the High Court on the basis of a written and viva voce test conducted by the High Court.

5. In terms of Rule 6² [“6 (1) Recruitment to the Service shall be made: (a) 65 percent by promotion from amongst the Civil Judges (Senior Division)/Chief Judicial Magistrates/Additional Civil Judges (Senior Division) on the basis of principle of merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test: Provided that no person shall be promoted to the Service who is less than thirty-five years of age; (b) 10 percent by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through limited competitive examination of Civil Judges (Senior Division) having not less than five years qualifying service as Civil Judges (Senior Division)/Chief Judicial Magistrates/Additional Civil Judges (Senior Division); and who are not less than thirty five years of age on the last date fixed for submission of applications for taking up the limited competitive examinations: Provided that if candidates are not available for 10 percent seats, or are not able to qualify in the examination then va

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(SC) 217

The High Court's revision of eligibility criteria for judicial promotions, requiring separate minimum marks in written and viva voce, is valid, distinguishing between different recruitment methods while upholding principles of merit and suitability.

Related Judgments

Kavita Kamboj VS High Court of Punjab and Haryana - 2024 Supreme(SC) 217

Abhimeet Sinha VS High Court of Judicature at Patna - 2024 4 Supreme 449

Hage Lampu S/o Late Hage Hailiang VS Gauhati High Court - 2023 Supreme(Gau) 763

Salam Samarjeet Singh VS High Court of Manipur At Imphal - 2024 7 Supreme 68

RUSHIL JINDAL vs PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AND OTHERS - 2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 16794

Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta VS High Court of Gujarat - 2024 Supreme(SC) 487

Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta VS High Court of Gujarat - 2023 3 Supreme 716

Rajesh Kumar Verma vs Hon - 2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 9849

Shashank Singh VS High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad - 2021 Supreme(All) 1149

Nitu Kumari VS State of Bihar - 2023 Supreme(Pat) 399