The court ruled that judicial officers must be evaluated fairly for promotions, and unlawful denial of seniority should be rectified, restoring the appellant's position and benefits.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 27th day of February, 2026

Syam Kumar V.M., J.

The Writ Appeal is filed challenging the judgment dated 04.09.2024 of the learned Single Judge arising in W.P.(C) No.3080 of 2021. Appellant was the petitioner in the W.P.(C).

2. The W.P.(C) was filed by the appellant, contending that despite being entitled to promotion to the cadre of District and Sessions Judge with effect from the relevant due date, respondents 2 to 4 had failed and refused to grant such promotion to restore his seniority over respondents 5 to 43. The following prayers were sought in the W.P.(C) :

“a. issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Exhibits P15 and P18 ;

b. issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction quashing Exhibits P16 and P22 to the extend they supersede the petitioner ;

c. issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction calling for the records leading to Exhibit P27 and quash the same to the extend it refuses to restore the seniority of the petitioner by considering and granting him promotion to the category of Sub Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate with effect from 12.03.2014 with all consequential benefits ;

d. to declare that the petitioner is entitled to be promoted as Sub Judge/Chief Judicial Magistrate with effect from 12.03.2014 on substantial basis and to be assigned seniority above all personnel who were juniors to him in the feeder category with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances, and to issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding respondents 1-4 to consider the petitioner accordingly and to grant him due promotion and seniority with all consequential benefits ;

e. grant such other relief as may be prayed for at the time of hearing and as this Honourable Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case ;

and

f. grant costs of this Writ petition.”

3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the W.P.(C) inter alia holding that the Administrative Committee of the High Court had evaluated the judgments of the appellant along with the Annual Confidential Report (ACR) and the opinions of the Judges in charge of the District and had come to the definite conclusion that the appellant is not eligible to be promoted to the cadre of Sub Judge/CJM on a regular basis and the finding so had been reverted to the cadre of the Munsiff Magistrate. It was concluded by the learned Single Judge that the said decision not to promote the appellant on a regular basis, as per Exhibit P15, was based on an objective evaluation of the judgments rendered by the appellant while he was promoted temporarily as a Sub Judge and the Administrative Committee’s wisdom in evaluating the judgments authored by the appellant cannot be substituted by the court. After a detailed appreciation of the contentions put forth, the learned Single Judge dismissed the W.P.(C), holding that the appellant was not entitled to any of the reliefs sought for. Aggrieved by the said judgment, this Writ Appeal has been preferred.

4. Heard Sri.P.Ravindran, Senior Advocate, instructed by Alina Anna Kose, Advocate for the appellant, Sri.K.R.Ganesh, Advocate for respondents 2, 3 and 4, Sri.K.P.Harish, learned Senior Government Pleader appearing for the 1^st respondent State, Sri.Philip Mathews, Advocate for respondent No.5.

5. Appellant's contentions could be summarised as follows:

● The learned Single Judge had failed to appreciate that the Administrative Committee had concluded that the deferment of the promotion of the appellant was not legal and that the decision to review the earlier orders was accordingly taken. If so, the appellant ought to have been