Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 874

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. Gavai, CJI, Augustine George Masih, K. Vinod Chandran, J.
All India Judges Association and Others – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
I.A. No.93974 of 2019 With I.A. Nos. 72900, 73015 And 40695 of 2021 With I.A. Nos.50269 And 201893 of 2022 In Writ Petition (C) No. 1022 of 1989
Decided On : 20-05-2025

Advocates appeared:
Amicus curiae Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ankit Yadav, AOR Mr. Aditya Sidhra, Adv. Ms. Pracheta Kar, Adv. Mr. Nadeem Afroz, Adv. Ms. Shaoni Das, Adv.
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Aman Prasad, Adv. Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, AOR Mr. Rakesh Dahiya, AOR Mr. A. Venayagam Balan, AOR Mr. Abhijit Sengupta, AOR Mr. Kuheli Mitra, Adv. Mr. Paras Chauhan, Adv. Mr. R.S.Mishra, Adv. Mr. Amar Nath Singh, Adv. Ms. Sunita Kumari, Adv. Mr. Navneet Singh, Adv. Mr. Pravir Kumar Jain, AOR Mrs. Amita Gupta, AOR
For Respondent(s): Ms. A. Subhashini, AOR Mr. Karan Bharihoke, AOR Mr. C Raghavendren, Adv. Mrs. C Rubavathi, Adv. Mr. P Rajaram, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Gupta, Adv. Mr. Devansh Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Ch Leela Sarveswar, Adv. Mr. M. A. Chinnasamy, AOR Mr. Nandi Kiran Kumar, Adv. Mr. Shibashish Misra, AOR Mr. Ajay Kumar, AOR Ms. Swagoti Batchas, Adv. Mrs. Barnali Basak, Adv. Ms. Swati Mishra, Adv. Ms. Anjana Sharma, Adv. Mr. Hitesh C Soni, Adv. Ms. Vaishali H Soni, Adv. Mr. Satish Kumar, AOR Mr. T. V. Ratnam, AOR Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Ms. Sagun Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Saaransh Shukla, Adv. Ms. G. Indira, AOR Mr. Anandh Kannan N., AOR Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR Mr. Umesh Kumar Yadav, Adv. Mr. Shreyash Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Nimish Arjaria, Adv. Ms. Priyanshi Goel, Adv. Ms. Hemantika Wahi, AOR Mrs. V. D. Khanna, AOR Mr. Upmanyu Tewari, Adv. Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Akshay Kumar Sharma, Adv. Ms. Devika Khanna, Adv. Mr. Vatan, Adv. Ms. N. Annapoorani, AOR Mr. V. K. Sidharthan, AOR Mr. Guntur Prabhakar, AOR Mr. T. G. Narayanan Nair, AOR Mr. Mukesh K. Giri, AOR Mr. Mandaar Mukesh Giri, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Jain, AOR Mr. Gopal Singh, AOR Mr. T. L. Garg, AOR Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR Mr. Ratan Kumar Choudhuri, AOR Mr. G. Prakash, AOR Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain, AOR Dr. J. P. Dhanda, AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Raghavendra M. Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. M. Bangaraswamy, Adv. Mr. Venkata Raghu Mannepalli, Adv. Ms. A. Sumathi, AOR Mr. Gopal Balwant Sathe, AOR Mr. Surya Kant, AOR Mr. Krishnanand Pandeya, AOR Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, AOR Ms. Mehraj, Adv. Mr. Vikalp Gupta, Adv. Mr. Manish K. Bishnoi, AOR Mrs. Bina Gupta, AOR Mr. R. Sathish, AOR Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, AOR Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mrs. D Tejaswi Reddy, Adv. Ms. Meera Mathur, AOR Mr. T. V. George, AOR Mr. B. D. Sharma, AOR Mr. R. N. Keswani, AOR Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Ms. Adviteeya, Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR Mr. Praveen Swarup, AOR Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR Mr. Ajit Pudussery, AOR Mr. Raj Kumar Mehta, AOR Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh, AOR Ms. Kumud Lata Das, AOR Mr. Harsh Ajay Singh, Adv. Ms. Pooja Rathore, Adv. Mr. Sourabh Suman, Adv. Mr. Puneet, Adv. Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. Ajay Amritraj, Adv. Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR Ms. Manpreet Kaur, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR Mrs. Revathy Raghavan, AOR Mr. Rajiv Mehta, AOR Mr. Abhisth Kumar, AOR Mrs. Anil Katiyar, AOR Mr. P. Parmeswaran, AOR Mr. Jitendra Mohan Sharma, AOR Mr. P. I. Jose, AOR Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR Mr. Arun K. Sinha, AOR Mr. P. K. Jain, AOR Mr. Haresh Raichura, AOR Mrs. Saroj Raichura, Adv. Mr. Kalp Raichura, Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR Mr. T. Mahipal, AOR Mr. Parijat Sinha, AOR Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Anil Shrivastav, AOR M/S. Parekh & Co., AOR Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, AOR Mr. K. R. Sasiprabhu, AOR Mr. Prashant Kumar, AOR Mr. Kanhaiya Priyadarshi, AOR M/S. Gagrat And Co, AOR M/S. Arputham Aruna And Co, AOR Mr. Radha Shyam Jena, AOR Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, AOR Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Nalin Kohli, Adv. Mr. B K Satija, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Shankar Dixit, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. M. Veerappa, AOR Mr. Anil Nag, AOR Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, AOR Dr. Sushil Balwada, AOR Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Adv. Mr. Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Adv. Mr. K. Ram Kumar, AOR Mr. Pravir Choudhary, AOR Mr. Reepak Kansal, Adv. Ms. Geeta Rani, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kishan Datta, AOR M/S. Corporate Law Group, AOR Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv. Mr. B.H. Marlapalle, Sr. Adv. Mr. Dilip Annasaheb Taur, AOR Mr. Amol V Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan Dwivedi, AOR Ms. Namita Choudhary, AOR Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Sr. Adv. Ms. Nidhi Mittal, AOR Mr. Gurjas Singh Narula, Adv. Ms. Jaya Choudhary, Adv. Mr. Anandh Kannan N., AOR Mr. V. N. Raghupathy, AOR Mr. Raghavendra M. Kulkarni, Adv. Mr. M. Bangaraswamy, Adv. Mr. Venkata Raghu Mannepalli, Adv. Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR Mr. K.M. Natraj, A.S.G. Mr. Neeraj Kr.sharma, Adv. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Vatsal Joshi, Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Verma, Adv. Mr. Piyush Beriwal, Adv. Mr. Harish Pandey, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kant Dubey, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Parihar, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. S. Gowthaman, AOR Mr. D. L. Chidananda, AOR Mr. Vinod Sharma, AOR Mr. T. V. Ratnam, AOR Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, AOR Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mrs. D Tejaswi Reddy, Adv. Mr. Maibam Nabaghanashyam Singh, AOR Mr. Ahanthem Henry, Adv. Mr. Ahanthem Rohen Singh, Adv. Mr. Mohan Singh, Adv. Mr. Aniket Rajput, Adv. Ms. Khoisnam Nirmala Devi, Adv. Mr. Yeshu Mehta, Adv. Mr. Kumar Mihir, AOR Ms. Asmita Singh, AOR Ms. Asmita Singh, Adv. Mr. Abheet Mangleek, Adv. Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Sahil Tagotra, AOR Mr. Sujay Jain, Adv. Ms. Shreya Kasera, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Sangal, AOR Ms. Manju Jetley, AOR Mr. Manish Kumar, AOR Mr. Divyansh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Kumar Saurav, Adv. Mr. Guntur Pramod Kumar, AOR Ms. Prerna Singh, Adv. Mr. Dhruv Yadav, Adv. Mr. Som Raj Choudhury, AOR Ms. Shrutee Aradhana, Adv. Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, AOR Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Adv. Ms. Chubalemla Chang, Adv. Mr. Prang Newmai, Adv. Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, AOR Mrs. Anu K Joy, Adv. Mr. Alim Anvar, Adv. Mr. Santhosh K, Adv. Mr. Ramesh Babu M. R., AOR Mr. Sunny Choudhary, AOR Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, AOR Mrs. Shashi Pathak, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Avijit Mani Tripathi, AOR Mr. K Rajeev, Adv. Mr. Bijo Mathew Joy, AOR Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Mr. Sameer Abhyankar, AOR Mr. Aakash Thakur, Adv. Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv. Mr. Chanchal Kumar Ganguli, AOR Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, AOR Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad, AOR Mrs. Pragya Baghel, AOR Ms. Nupur Kumar, AOR Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, A.A.G. Mr. Abhimanyu Singh GA, Adv. Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Mr. P. S. Sudheer, AOR M/S. PLR Chambers And Co., AOR Mr. Purushottam Sharma Tripathi, AOR Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Adv. Ms. Vani Vyas, Adv. Mr. Prakhar Singh, Adv. Mr. Ajay Pal, AOR Mr. Atul Kumar, AOR Ms. Sweety Singh, Adv. Ms. Archana Kumari, Adv. Mr. Rahul Pandey, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Upadhyay, Adv. Mr. Sudipta Singha Roy, Adv. Mr. Harsh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Diksha Joshi, Adv. Mr. Amit Gupta, AOR Ms. Muskan Nagpal, Adv. Mr. Kshitij Vaibhav, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, AOR Mr. Pawan, Adv. Mr. Parvesh Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Mayur Raj, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, AOR Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, AOR Ms. Sujata Kurdukar, AOR Mr. Sravan Kumar Karanam, AOR Ms. Shireesh Tyagi, Adv. Ms. M. Harshini, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Atrey, AOR Mr. G. N. Reddy, AOR Mr. Amrish Kumar, AOR Mr. Shashank Singh, AOR Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Wasim Qadri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. T A Khan, Adv. Mr. Nalin Kohli, Adv. Mr. B K Satija, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Vinayak Sharma, Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Daya Krishan Sharma, AOR Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Mr. Satyajeet Kumar, AOR Mr. Prashant Shukla, Adv. Mr. Vivek Sharma, AOR Mr. Siddharth R Gupta, Adv. Mr. Mrigank Prabhakar, AOR Mr. Siddharth Sahu, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Adv. Mr. Shashank Pachauri, Adv. Mr. D. K. Devesh, AOR Mr. Aravindh S., AOR Ms. Enakshi Mukhopadhyay Siddhanta, AOR Mr. Ravi Kumar S., Adv. Mr. Vedant Mishra, Adv. Ms. Smita Amratlal Vora, AOR Dr. Hemant Gupta, A.A.G. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Payal Gupta, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Rony John, Adv. Ms. Vineeta Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Mr. Fateh Singh, Adv. Mr. Amit Ojha, Adv. Mr. Prashant Sharma, Adv. Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, Adv., Adv. Mr. Mahesh Thakur, AOR Mr. Mahfooz Ahsan Nazki, AOR Mr. Santosh Krishnan, AOR Mr. Niranjan Sahu, AOR Ms. Shivangi Gupta, Adv. Ms. Mallika Yadav, Adv. Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Ms. Vishakha, AOR Mr. K M Natraj, A.S.G. Mr. Wasim S Qadri, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. B K Satija, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Rajeeva Ranjan Rajesh, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Srivastava, Adv. Mrs. Kritygya Kait, Adv. Mr. Satish Pandey, AOR Mr. Smarhar Singh, AOR Ms. Shweta Kumari, Adv. Mr. Dhananjaya Kumar Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Raghvendra Kumar, AOR Mr. Anil Kumar Mishra-i, AOR Mr. Amit Sharma, AOR Mr. Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Varij Nayan Mishra, Adv. Mr. Braj Kishore Mishra, AOR Mr. Amit Anand Tiwari, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Ms. Devyani Gupta, Adv. Mr. Saushriya Havelia A, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Ms. Tanvi Anand, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Ms. Ankita Sharma, AOR Mr. Arjun D Singh, Adv. Mr. Venkata Raghuvamsy D., AOR Ms. Aswathi M.K., AOR Mr. Kumar Anurag Singh, Adv. Mr. Anando Mukherjee, AOR Mr. Shwetank Singh, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar, Adv. Ms. Radhika Gautam, AOR Mr. Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, AOR Mr. Nishant Sharma, Adv. Mr. Savadikar Ankur Shirish, Adv. Mr. Viraj M. Parakh, Adv. Mr. Pai Amit, AOR Mr. Akshay Girish Ringe, AOR Mr. Kartikeya Rastogi, D.A.G. Ms. Inderdeep Kaur Raina, Adv. Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR Mr. Karun Sharma, Adv. Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Adv. Ms. Rajkumari Divyasana, Adv. Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Promotion to Higher Judicial Service [Cadre of District Judge] – It will be desirable to modify requirement to become eligible for LDCE for Higher Judicial Services and reduce minimum number of years of experience as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) from 5 years to 3 years – However, total number of years of experience for a Judicial Officer for being eligible for LDCE should be a minimum cumulative of 7 years including service as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Civil Judge (Senior Division).
(2) Appointment on Post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) – High Courts and State Governments in country shall amend relevant service rules to the effect that candidates desirous of appearing in examination for post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) must have practised for a minimum period of 3 years to be eligible for said examination.
(3) Experience should be counted from the date on which provisional registration has been granted to a candidate.

Headnote:
(A) Service Law – Promotion to Higher Judicial Service [Cadre of District Judge] – As to whether 10% quota reserved for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion to Higher Judicial Service i.e., cadre of District Judge, needs to be restored to 25% as determined by this Court in case of All India Judges’ Association and others v. Union of India and others, reported in (2002) 4 SCC 247 – If, in a particular year sufficient candidates are not selected from Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) quota, it will be appropriate that such posts would revert back to regular promotion quota based on merit-cum-seniority, to be filled up in same year – In such a case, no adverse impact on administration of justice would occur even if LDCE quota is increased to 25% – This apart from avoiding any adverse effect on administration of justice due to sufficient number of seats not being filled up would also ensure that no prejudice would be caused to regular promotees and at the same time, said exercise would provide an incentive to meritorious Judicial Officers, if their merit deserves the same – Purpose behind providing a special quota for LDCE is to enable meritorious Judicial Officers to get accelerated promotion and enter Cadre of District Judge at an earlier point of time than other less meritorious candidates – In some of High Courts, a Judicial Officer gets into Cadre of District Judge through regular promotion itself after he/she completes 5 years’ service as Civil Judge (Senior Division) – It will be desirable to modify requirement to become eligible for LDCE for Higher Judicial Services and reduce minimum number of years of experience as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) from 5 years to 3 years – However, total number of years of experience for a Judicial Officer for being eligible for LDCE should be a minimum cumulative of 7 years including service as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Civil Judge (Senior Division). (Paras 28 and 42)
(B) Service Law – Appointment to Post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Whether a quota needs to be reserved for meritorious candidate from Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Civil Judge (Senior Division) so that there is an incentive for merit in cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division) – A system wherein 10% of posts in Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) would be reserved for promotion of Civil Judge (Junior Division) through LDCE mechanism needs to be introduced so as to provide incentive at an earlier promotion to meritorious candidates working in Cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division) – Said seats would be filled up 30 through same mechanism adopted for filling up vacancies reserved through LDCE for entry into Cadre of District Judge – Minimum experience of a Judicial Officer in Cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division) for appearing in such an examination should be 3 years – Uniform practice needs to be followed by all States in the country – Since most of States are already filling up vacant posts as per total cadre strength, keeping uniformity in mind, quota to be reserved for LDCE should be calculated on the basis of cadre strength.(Paras 46 and 48)
(C) Service Law – Promotion to Higher Judicial Service [Cadre of District Judge] – Whether some suitability test should also be introduced while promoting Civil Judge (Senior Division) to Cadre of District Judges against existing 65% quota for promotion to Higher Judicial Services on the basis of merit-cum seniority – Though every High Court would be required to frame Rules for determining suitability of a candidate for being promoted to Cadre of Higher Judicial Service from Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division), no straight-jacket formula can be laid down for said purpose – In such of States where Rules have not been framed for determining suitability of a candidate for being promoted to Cadre of Higher Judicial Service from Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division), such of High Courts and State Governments should frame Rules forthwith – High Courts and State Governments shall also examine, as to whether Rules already existing are sufficient to determine suitability of a candidate for being promoted to Cadre of Higher Judicial Service from Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division). (Para 52)
(D) Service Law – Promotion to Higher Judicial Service [Cadre of District Judge] – Neither knowledge derived from books nor pre-service training can be an adequate substitute for first-hand experience of working of court-system and administration of justice – This is possible only when a candidate is exposed to atmosphere in court by assisting seniors and observing how Lawyers and Judges function in court – Candidate should be equipped to understand intricacies of functions of a Judge – Requirement of reintroduction of a certain number of years of practice would be necessary – After a candidate receives provisional registration, he/she is entitled to practice within State of which Bar Council has given said provisional registration – Experience should be counted from the date on which provisional registration has been granted to a candidate – Requirement of minimum years of practice shall not be applicable in cases where concerned High Court has already initiated selection process for post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) prior to date of this judgment and shall be applicable only from next recruitment process;. (Paras 83, 84, 86, 89 and 90)
(E) Service Law – Appointment on Post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) – All High Courts and State Governments in country shall amend relevant service rules to the effect that candidates desirous of appearing in examination for post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) must have practised for a minimum period of 3 years to be eligible for said examination – To fulfil said requirement, the Rules shall mandate that candidate produces a certificate to that effect duly certified either by Principal Judicial Officer of that Court or by an Advocate of that Court having a minimum standing of 10 years duly endorsed by Principal Judicial Officer of such a District or a Principal Judicial Officer at such a station – Insofar as candidates who are practising before High Courts or this Court, they shall 60 be certified by an Advocate who has a minimum standing of 10 years duly endorsed by an officer designated by that High Court or this Court – Experience of candidates which they have gained while working as Law Clerks with any of Judges or Judicial Officers in country should also be considered while calculating their total number of years of practice – Rules shall also mandate that candidates who are appointed to post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) pursuant to their selection through examination must compulsorily undergo at least 1 year of training before presiding in a Court. [Para 89 (vii)]
Facts of the case:
Present batch of applications raises issues pertaining to qualification, promotion and selection of candidates who are desirous of either entering Judicial Services as Civil Judge (Junior Division) or Higher Judicial Service, and with regard to promotions at different levels within Judicial Services.
Findings of Court:
All such recruitment processes which have been kept in abeyance, in view of pendency of present proceedings, shall proceed in accordance with Rules which were applicable on date of advertisement/notification.
Result : Directions issued.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. GAVAI, CJI

INDEX

I.	PREFACE
II.	RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
III.	DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS
Issue No.1:	As to whether the 10% quota reserved for Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (for short, ‘LDCE’) for promotion to Higher Judicial Service i.e. cadre of District Judge, needs to be restored to 25% as determined by this Court in the case of All India Judges’ Association and others v. Union of India and others, reported in (2002) 4 SCC 247?
Issue No.2:	As to whether the minimum qualifying experience for appearing in the aforesaid examination needs to be reduced, and if so, by how many years?
Issue No.3:	As to whether a quota needs to be reserved for meritorious candidate from the Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Civil Judge (Senior Division) so that there is an incentive for merit in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division)?
Issue No.4:	If yes, then what should be the percentage thereof and what should be the minimum experience as a Civil Judge (Junior Division)?
Issue No.5:	As to whether the quota to be reserved for the aforementioned departmental examinations in a particular year should be calculated on the cadre strength or on the number of vacancies occurring in the particular recruitment year?
Issue No.6:	As to whether some suitability test should also be introduced while promoting the Civil Judge (Senior Division) to the Cadre of District Judges against the existing 65% quota for promotion to Higher Judicial Services on the basis of merit-cum-seniority
Issue No.7:	As to whether the requirement of having minimum three years practice for appearing in the examination of Civil Judge (Junior Division), which was done away by this Court in the case of All India Judges Association & Ors. (supra), needs to be restored? And if so, by how many years?
Issue No.8:	If the requirement of certain minimum years of practice for appearing in the examination of Civil Judge (Junior Division) is restored, should the same be calculated from the date of the provisional enrolment/registration or from the date of the passing of the AIBE?
IV.	CONCLUSION AND DIRECTIONS

I. PREFACE

1. This batch of applications raises issues pertaining to the qualification, promotion and selection of candidates who are desirous of either entering the Judicial Services as Civil Judge (Junior Division) or Higher Judicial Service, and with regard to the promotions at different levels within the Judicial Services.

2. Before we consider the issues in light of the submissions made on behalf of the various stakeholders, we first set out below the prayers sought in the various applications.

I.A. NO.93974 OF 2019

3. This I.A. has been filed seeking the following reliefs:

(ii) In the alternative, modify the order dated 20th April 2010 passed in the writ petition by restoring the share and/or quota for LDCE for introduction in West Bengal Higher Judicial Service to 25% of the cadre strength of District Judge (Entry Level) and by granting liberty to the High Court at Calcutta to fill up the vacancies for promotion on merit through LDCE in such manner that 10% of the total vacancies arising in a particular recruitment year is earmarked for LDCE or else the object and/or purpose of carving out such channel might be frustrated in so far as State of West Bengal is concerned.

I.A. NOS. 72900 AND 40695 OF 2021 AND I.A. NO.50269 OF 2022

4. These I.As. have been filed seeking directions in respect of:

(ii) Enhancement of percentage of quota for accelerated promotion strictly on the basis of merit through competi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(SC) 874

Cases Referred (1)

Related Judgments

All India Judges Association VS Union of India - 2025 5 Supreme 152

All India Judges Association VS Union of India - 2022 Supreme(SC) 354

Sunil Kumar Verma VS State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary - 2021 Supreme(Pat) 86

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

M. Kamalakar S/o Late M. C. Manik Rao VS High Court of Telangana, Rep. by Registrar General, Hyderabad - 2023 Supreme(Telangana) 305

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

Neetunagar VS Govt. of NCT of Delhi - 2023 Supreme(Del) 606

Neetu Nagar VS Govt. of NCT of Delhi - 2023 Supreme(Del) 1283

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

Prem Narayan Singh VS Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh - 2021 5 Supreme 490