Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.R. GAVAI, CJI, SURYA KANT, VIKRAM NATH, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JOYMALYA BAGCHI, JJ.
All India Judges Association and Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and Ors. – Respondents
I.A. No. 230675 of 2025 In Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1022 of 1989
Decided On : 19-11-2025
(A) Constitution of India – Articles 233, 234 and 235 – Seniority – Principles governing determination of seniority within cadre of Higher Judicial Services (HJS) of all States – Career progression to higher echelons of Judiciary is neither a matter of right nor of entitlement – Most appropriate mechanism to harmonise system of seniority across HJS is a 4-Point roster system, wherein first two points shall be allocated to RPs, third to LDCE(s), and fourth to DR(s) – This roster would repeat thereafter, till all appointees are placed within the roster – Roster is an annual creation – Court must also uphold and enforce ideal of seniority as per continuous service within cadre to prevent anomalies that many States are faced with today – If recruitment process from any source is not completed in the year in which it began, but appointments are made before end of following year, those appointees shall be placed at their respective roster points for year of initiation, provided that no appointments from any source are made for next recruitment year before these appointments are effected – Barring such exception, continuous length of service ought to be criterion for determining inter se seniority in HJS, subject to further condition that all appointees in a single recruitment year are placed against their respective annual roster points, regardless of actual date of appointment – Such mechanism serves to mitigate grievances and preserve seniority of an appointee who was subsequently borne in service only due to vagaries of recruitment process – In same vein, officers appointed earlier also cannot be aggrieved, as they would be adjusted within roster only along with their relative contemporaries in service and would be put on notice regarding seniority determination once other selections are concluded – If High Court, for any valid reason, decides not to initiate recruitment process from any of three sources in a given year, person subsequently appointed from those sources shall not be eligible to be placed within roster for that year in which recruitment from the source did not take place. (Paras 52, 53, 70, 71, 73, 79, 81, 82 and 83)
(B) Service Law – Seniority – Principles governing determination of seniority within cadre of Higher Judicial Services (HJS) of all States – Perceived discontentment and heartburn without something more in the form of a legal claim, illegal denial, or at least a legitimate expectation cannot result in creating an artificial classification of members within a cadre – Statistical data is disparate and does not provide a substantial basis to find such discontentment and heartburn of RPs in HJS, to be justified – There is no common malady of disproportionate representation of DRs in HJS such that it is diminishing prospects of financial upgradation or designation as Principal District Judges to Promotees, which afflict Country as a whole or make it imperative for this Court to resolve it, by giving a preference to RPs or LDCEs – Data put forth in many States indicate prevalence or equivalence of RPs in HJS and key positions, which is natural since their ratio is 3/4th of total posts in cadre – On the entry into a common cadre from different sources (RP, LDCE and DR) and assignment of seniority as per annual roster, incumbents lose their ‘birthmark’ of source from which they are recruited – Fixation in Selection Grade and Super Time Scale within HJS is based on merit-cum-seniority within cadre and cannot depend upon length of service or performance in lower rungs of Judiciary; latter loses its significance after RPs and LDCEs, by its virtue, are propelled into HJS – Reliance on it does not serve object of efficient administration of justice and is counterproductive – Length and performance as a Civil Judge also does not constitute an intelligible differentia to classify incumbents in common cadre of District Judge and classification made in Triloki Nath Khosa[(1974) 1 SCC 19] by a Constitution Bench of this Court on the basis of educational qualifications stands on a different footing – Individual career aspirations are a normal incidence of service, accentuated only by better performance; they are not connected to objective of an independent and strengthened judiciary and cannot guide shape of rules of seniority – Sufficient accelerated opportunities are provided for Members of Judicial Service entering into lower rungs, for career advancement as provided by Constitution Bench in Rejanish K.V. v K. Deepa, [2025 SCC OnLine SC 2196] ; enabling reckoning of their service for direct recruitment to HJS and by Sixth AIJA8; facilitating fast-track promotions to Civil Judge (Senior Division) and the HJS through reduction in minimum period of service – Seniority of officers within HJS shall be determined through an annual 4-point roster, filled by all officers appointed in a particular year in repeating sequence of 2 RPs, 1 LDCE, and 1 DR – Only if recruitment process is completed within year after which it was initiated and no other appointments, from any of three sources, have already taken place in respect of recruitment initiated for that subsequent year, shall officers belatedly so appointed be entitled to seniority as per roster of year in which recruitment was initiated – If recruitment process is not initiated for vacancies arising in a given year in same year, candidate filling such vacancy, in subsequent recruitment, shall be granted seniority within annual roster of year in which recruitment process is finally concluded and appointment is made – After recruitment of DRs and LDCEs is complete for a particular year, positions falling in their quota that remain unfilled due to lack of suitable candidates shall be filled through RPs, subject to such RPs being placed only on subsequent RP positions in annual roster; and vacancies in subsequent year shall be computed so as to apply proportion of 50:25:25 to entire cadre – Statutory rules governing HJS in respective States, in consultation with High Courts, shall prescribe exact modalities of Annual Roster and how directions of this Judgment shall be implemented. (Para 100)
Facts of the case:
Instant Interlocutory Application seeks to revisit principles governing the determination of seniority within cadre of Higher Judicial Services (HJS) of all States. This controversy is neither novel nor transient; rather, it represents a recurring dilemma that has, from time to time, engaged attention of this Court. Over course of many decades, divergent approaches have been adopted in an endeavour to reconcile competing claims between different streams of appointment, reflecting this Court’s continued attempt to bring coherence and uniformity to this enduring issue.
Findings of Court:
The respective States / Union Territory Administrations are hereby also directed to undertake appropriate amendments in their respective statutory rules, in consultation with High Court, to bring them in consonance with guidelines laid down in this judgment, within a period of three months.
Result : Reference answered.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. determination of seniority in hjs. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. need for balance among judicial officer ranks. (Para 5 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. historical context of aija rulings. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. high court authority over judicial services. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 5. concept of ‘heartburn’ among rps and drs. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 6. adjustment of seniority based on merit. (Para 43 , 46 , 47) |
| 7. guidelines for future seniority determinations. (Para 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101) |
JUDGMENT :
INTRODUCTION
1. The instant Interlocutory Application seeks to revisit the principles governing the determination of seniority within the cadre of Higher Judicial Services (HJS) of all the States. This controversy is neither novel nor transient; rather, it represents a recurring dilemma that has, from time to time, engaged the attention of this Court.
2. To briefly outline the factual context herein, the HJS, across the country, is comprised of officers recruited through three sources: (i) Regular Promotees (RP); (ii) those promoted through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations (LDCE); and (iii) Direct Recruits (DR). These three sources for recruitment and appointment to the position of District Judge were crystallised through various directions issued in the successive All India Judges Association (AIJA) proceedings. It is amongst these three sources that the dispute of inter se seniority has arisen.
3. Over the course of many decades, divergent approaches have been adopted in an endeavour to reconcile competing claims between different streams of appointment, reflecting this Court’s continued attempt to bring coherence and uniformity to this enduring issue.
4. This question has once again fallen before us for consideration in light of an interlocutory application, being I.A. No. 230675 of 2025, filed by learned Amicus Curiae (Mr Siddharth Bhatnagar, Senior Advocate) in the lead case. Notice was accordingly issued in respect of this application on 17.09.2025.
5. Having regard to the fact that the aforesaid application brought to light an ‘anomalous situation’ pertaining to the inter se seniority between District Judges (Direct Recruits) and District Judges (Promotees), this Court, vide order dated 07.10.2025, was pleased to record as follows:
….
10. It cannot be disputed that the judges who were initially appointed as CJ gain rich experience since they have been serving in the judiciary for a number of decades. Furthermore, every judicial officer, be it one who was initially recruited as CJ or one who was directly recruited as a District Judge, has an aspiration to reach at least up to the position of a High Court Judge.
11. We are, therefore, of the view that a proper balance has to be struck between the competing claims. However, this issue would involve consideration of some of the judgments and orders passed by Benches comprising of three learned judges of this Court. Therefore, in order to put the entire controversy at rest and provide a meaningful and long-lasting solution, we are of the considered view that it will be appropriate if the issue is considered by a Constitution Bench consisting of five learned Judges of this Court.
12. We, therefore, direct the Registrar (Judicial) to place the matter before the Chief Justice of India, on the administrative side for obtaining appropriate orders.”
6. Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India thereafter directed that the matter be placed before a 5-Judge Bench. The matter wa
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
