Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta vs High Court of Gujarat

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(SC) 487

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta – Appellant
Versus
High Court of Gujarat – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Purvish Jitendra Malkan, AOR Ms. Dharita Purvish Malkan, Adv. Mr. Alok Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kush Goel, Adv. Mr. Ryan, Adv. Mr. Suraj Pandey, Adv. Mr. R. Basant, Sr. Adv. Mr. P S Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vivek Jain, AOR Ms. Suchitra Kumbhat, Adv. Mr. Kishan Chakawala, Adv. Mr. Rajat Jain, Adv. Mr. Sadiq Noor, Adv. Mr. Akshay Sahay, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Ms. Vishakha, AOR Ms. Vishwaja Rao, Adv. Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Ms. Mayuri Raghuvanshi, AOR Mr. Vyom Raghuvanshi, Adv. Ms. Akanksha Rathore, Adv. Mr. Dushyant Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shashank Shekhar Singh, Adv. Mr. Akshat Malpani, Adv. Ms. Ayushi Gaur, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR Mr. Jayesh Gaurav, Adv. Mr. Monarch K. Pandya, Adv. Mr. Ishwar Chandra Roy, Adv. Ms. Diksha Ojha, Adv. Mr. Ranjan Nikhil Dharnidhar, AOR Mr. Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv. Ms. Nidhi Khanna, AOR Mr. Rajeev Kumar Bansal, AOR Mr. Parvinder, Adv. Mr. Akshay K.ghai, Adv. Mr. Madan Lal Daga, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Sonthalia, Adv. Mr. Ganesh Barowalia, Adv. Mr. Vidya Sagar, Adv. Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, AOR Mr. Aditya Choksi, Adv. Mr. Arpit Gupta, AOR

JUDGMENT :

J.B. Pardiwala, J.

For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided in the following parts: -

INDEX

A. FACTUAL MATRIX

i. Method of Promotion followed by the High Court of Gujarat

B. REFERENCE ORDER

C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

D. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE HIGH COURT

E. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PROMOTED CANDIDATES

F. POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

G. ANALYSIS

i. Maintainability of the present Writ Petition under Article 32

ii. The Legislative History and Scheme of the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005

a. Shetty Commission on Judicial Reforms and the Decision of this Court in All India Judges’ Association (3)

b. Relevant Statutory Provisions of the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005

iii. Evolution of the Principles of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ and ‘Seniority-cum-Merit’ in Service Jurisprudence

a. Concept of Promotion: The meaning and origin of seniority and merit as parameters.

b. Principle of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ and ‘Seniority-cum-Merit’ in Service Jurisprudence

c. ‘Hybrid-Dynamic Mode of Promotio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

None of the cases in the provided list explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law in subsequent rulings. There are no clear markers such as "overruled," "reversed," or "criticized" in the descriptions. Without explicit treatment information, we cannot definitively categorize any case as bad law based solely on this list.

Followed/Precedent Cases:

Dharmendra Kumar Singh VS Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand - 2025 1 Supreme 579: References a judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta and Another (supra), indicating reliance on a previous authoritative decision. The mention of "in view of the judgment rendered by this Court" suggests it is treated as binding precedent.

Central Council For Research In Ayurveda And Siddha VS K. Santha - 2001 4 Supreme 97: Discusses legal principles regarding wrong contentions and their binding nature, implying adherence to established legal doctrine.

Rajendra Kumar Srivastava VS Samyut Kshetriya Gramin Bank - 2009 7 Supreme 383, B. V. Sivaiah VS K. Addanki Babu - 1998 6 Supreme 1, Bhagwandas Tiwari VS Dewas Shajapur Kshetriya Gramin Bank - 2007 1 Supreme 937, Malik Mazhar Sultan VS U. P. Public Service Commission - 2006 3 Supreme 493, PALURE BHASKAR RAO ETC. ETC. VS P. RAMASESHAIAH - 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 345, Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. VS Seema Sharma - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 921, Mohammed Ishaq VS S. Kazam Pasha - 2009 4 Supreme 690, K. K. Parmar VS H. C. Gujarat thr. Registrar - 2006 4 Supreme 625, Union Of India VS Lt. Gen. Rajendra Singh Kadyan - 2000 5 Supreme 281: These cases articulate principles or rules that are likely considered settled law or well-established legal principles, indicating they are treated as good law and part of the legal framework.

Bharat Petroleum Corporation LTD. VS N. R. Vairamani - 2004 7 Supreme 126, Thampanoor Ravi VS Charupara Ravi - 1999 8 Supreme 72, Madan Mohan Choudhary VS State Of Bihar - 1999 1 Supreme 448, Mohammed Ishaq VS S. Kazam Pasha - 2009 4 Supreme 690, K. K. Parmar VS H. C. Gujarat thr. Registrar - 2006 4 Supreme 625, Union Of India VS Lt. Gen. Rajendra Singh Kadyan - 2000 5 Supreme 281: These cases appear to set out clear legal principles or procedural rules, likely treated as binding or good law.

Distinguished/Clarified Cases:

Kavita Kamboj VS High Court of Punjab and Haryana - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 217: Discusses the validity of a High Court's revision of eligibility criteria, implying that the Court is clarifying or affirming the validity of certain administrative decisions, but not indicating treatment as bad law.

Shriram Tomar VS Praveen Kumar Jaggi - 2019 4 Supreme 400: Clarifies that an employer can fix benchmarks above the qualifying marks without violating principles, indicating a reaffirmation of legal principles rather than a challenge or overrule.

PALURE BHASKAR RAO ETC. ETC. VS P. RAMASESHAIAH - 2017 0 Supreme(SC) 345: Explains concepts of seniority, eligibility, and merit, likely serving as clarifications of existing principles.

Legal Principles and Procedural Rules:

Maharashtra State Judicial Service Association VS High Court Of Judicature At Bombay - 2002 2 Supreme 78, High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan VS P. P. Singh - 2003 1 Supreme 909, Malik Mazhar Sultan VS U. P. Public Service Commission - 2006 3 Supreme 493, Union Of India VS Lt. Gen. Rajendra Singh Kadyan - 2000 5 Supreme 281, K. K. Parmar VS H. C. Gujarat thr. Registrar - 2006 4 Supreme 625: These cases primarily articulate procedural rules or principles (e.g., vacancy filling, promotion criteria, judicial appointments), which are generally treated as settled law unless explicitly overruled.

Uncertain Cases:

Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. VS Seema Sharma - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 921, Bhagwandas Tiwari VS Dewas Shajapur Kshetriya Gramin Bank - 2007 1 Supreme 937, Mohammed Ishaq VS S. Kazam Pasha - 2009 4 Supreme 690, Madan Mohan Choudhary VS State Of Bihar - 1999 1 Supreme 448, Mohammed Ishaq VS S. Kazam Pasha - 2009 4 Supreme 690: While these cases articulate principles that are likely considered good law, there is no explicit indication of subsequent treatment, so their status as good law is assumed but not confirmed.

The case High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan VS P. P. Singh - 2003 1 Supreme 909 criticizes the High Court's decision regarding judicial appointment procedures, but it does not state that the earlier decision was overruled or bad law; it appears to be a commentary or clarification rather than a formal overruling.

Cases where treatment is not explicitly stated or where the language suggests clarification rather than overrule, such as High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan VS P. P. Singh - 2003 1 Supreme 909, Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. VS Seema Sharma - 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 921, Bhagwandas Tiwari VS Dewas Shajapur Kshetriya Gramin Bank - 2007 1 Supreme 937, and Mohammed Ishaq VS S. Kazam Pasha - 2009 4 Supreme 690, are placed here. Their treatment status remains uncertain without further context.

2024 Supreme(SC) 487

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRARavikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta – AppellantVersusHigh Court of Gujarat – Respondent

Cases Referred (30)

Judicial Analysis

D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA
Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta – Appellant
Versus
High Court of Gujarat – Respondent