Supreme Court Clarifies Promotion Criteria for District Judges in Jharkhand: Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. High Court of Jharkhand & Ors. (2025)

Date of the Judgment: January 15, 2025

Citation: 2025 INSC 72

Judges: B.V. Nagarathna, J., Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

Can a judicial officer who has qualified a suitability test for promotion be denied promotion based on a comparative merit list? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning promotions to the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service. The Court clarified that once a candidate meets the minimum suitability criteria, they cannot be denied promotion solely based on a merit list. This judgment emphasizes that suitability, not just comparative merit, is the primary consideration for promotions within the 65% quota. The judgment was authored by Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, with Justice B.V. Nagarathna concurring.

Case Background

The case involves three appellants, Dharmendra Kumar Singh (Appellant No. 1), and two other judicial officers (Appellant Nos. 2 and 3), who were initially appointed as Munsifs [Civil Judge (Junior Division)]. Appellant No. 1 was promoted to Civil Judge (Senior Division) on July 23, 2014, while Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were promoted on April 20, 2016. They were included in the combined gradation list of judicial officers in Jharkhand at serial numbers 141, 195, and 204, respectively. The High Court of Jharkhand issued a notification on May 19, 2018, for appointments to the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service, and the appellants participated in the selection process. The dispute arose when, despite qualifying the suitability test, they were not promoted because they did not score high enough on the merit list, with junior officers being promoted instead.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court of Jharkhand, challenging the notification dated May 30, 2019, which promoted private respondents to the post of District Judge. The High Court dismissed their petition, noting that while the appellants had secured more than the minimum qualifying marks (40), they had scored less than the last selected candidate. The High Court emphasized that the last selected candidate had secured 51 marks, while the appellants had secured 50, 50 and 43 marks respectively. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court of India.

Legal Framework

The appointments to the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service are governed by the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Services (Recruitment, Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules, 2001. Rules 4 and 5 of these rules outline the methods of appointment:

• Rule 4: Specifies that appointments to the post of Additional District Judge shall be made by the Governor in consultation with the High Court through:
  • Direct recruitment as recommended by the High Court under Article 233(2) of the Constitution of India.
  • Promotion from Sub-Judges (Civil Judge, Senior Division) based on merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test.
  • Promotion through a Limited Competitive Examination for Civil Judge (Senior Division) with at least 5 years of service.
• Rule 5: Specifies the quota for each method of appointment:
  • 65% by promotion from Sub-Judges based on merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test.
  • 10% by promotion through a Limited Competitive Examination based strictly on merit. If candidates are not available or do not qualify, these posts are filled by regular promotion.
  • 25% by direct recruitment from the Bar.

The suitability test comprises an interview (20 marks), service profile based on ACRs (60 marks), evaluation of judgments (10 marks), and marks for each year of service as Civil Judge (Senior Division) (maximum 10 marks). A minimum of 40 marks in aggregate is required to qualify for promotion.

The relevant rules are as follows:

“4. APPOINTMENT TO THE SERVICE: Appointment to the Service, which shall in the first instance ordinarily be to the post of Additional District Judge, shall be made by the Governor, in consultation with High Court: (a) by direct recruitment of persons as recommended by the High Court for such appointment under clause (2) of Article 233 of the Constitution of India; (b) by promotion from amongst the Sub -Judges (Civil Judge, Senior Division) on the basis of merit -cum-seniority and passing a suitability test and; (c) by promotion on the basis of Limited Competitive Examination of club Judges (Civil Judge, Senior Division) having not less than 5 years service in the same cadre.”

“5. Of the total post in the cadre of service: – (i) 65 % shall be filled in by promotion from amongst the Sub Judges (Civil Judge, Senior Division) on the basis of merit -cum-seniority and passing a suitability test as may from time to time be prescribed by the High Court. (ii) 10% shall be filled in by promotion (by way of selection) strictly on the basis of merit through a limited Competitive examination of Sub Judges (Civil Judge, Senior Division) having not less than 5 years service and also having due regard to his service records in the past. Provided, if candidates are not available for 10% quota, or are not able to qualify in the examination, then vacant post shall be filled up by regular promotion. (iii) 25 % shall be filled in by direct recruitment from the Bar on the basis of written test and viva -voce conducted by the High Court. (iv) The suitability test as provided in Clause (i) above shall comprise of: – (a) Interview of 20 Marks, (b) 60 Marks shall be earmarked on the basis of Service Profile depending on the remarks earned by the Officer in his A.C.R. during last 10 ( ten) years of service, which may include the Service as Civil Judge (Junior Division). The marking pattern shall be as follows for this section: – Outstanding – 6 Marks. Very Good – 5 Marks. Good – 4 Marks. Satisfactory – 3 Marks. Average – 2 Marks. Poor – 1 Mark. (c) Evaluation of Judgement – 10 Marks. (d) Maximum of 10 Marks shall be earmarked on the basis of 1 mark against each year of completion of Service as Civil Judge (Senior Division) by the Officer. The candidate obtaining minimum 40 Marks in aggregate shall be treated suitable for appointment on promotion. However, the intense seniority in the Cadre of Superior Judicial Service of such suitable candidates/Officers shall be determined in terms of Rules 8(b) of these Rules.”

Arguments

Appellants’ Submissions:

• The appellants argued that they had successfully qualified the suitability test by securing more than 40 marks.
• They contended that once they met the minimum suitability criteria, they should not be denied promotion based on a comparative merit list.
• They relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ravi Kumar Dhansukhlal Maheta and Another vs. High Court of Gujarat and Others [2024 SCC Online SC 972], which held that suitability should be tested on individual merit and not through comparative assessment for the 65% promotional quota.

Respondents’ Submissions:

• The respondents argued that the promotions were based on a merit list, and those with higher marks were rightfully promoted.
• They contended that the High Court had correctly applied the rules and procedures for promotion.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the appellants, having qualified the suitability test, could be denied promotion solely based on their lower placement in the merit list.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authority:

• Ravi Kumar Dhansukhlal Maheta and Another vs. High Court of Gujarat and Others [2024 SCC Online SC 972] – Supreme Court of India: The court referred to this case to emphasize that suitability should be tested on individual merit and not through comparative assessment for the 65% promotional quota. The ratio of this case was that once a candidate qualifies the suitability test, they cannot be denied promotion based on comparative merit for the 65% promotional quota.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed the judgment in Ravi Kumar Dhansukhlal Maheta and Another vs. High Court of Gujarat and Others [2024 SCC Online SC 972], stating that the suitability of each candidate should be tested on their own merit and that a comparative assessment cannot be the basis for promotion within the 65% quota.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that suitability, once established, should be the basis for promotion, especially in the 65% quota. The Court emphasized that the 65% promotional quota is based on ‘merit-cum-seniority’ and not strictly on ‘merit’ as in the 10% quota. The Court also considered that the appellants had qualified the suitability test and should not be deprived of their legitimate right to promotion. The court also took into consideration the fact that the appellants were subsequently promoted and the issue now remains in respect of their seniority alone.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning is clear: “In light of the aforesaid judgment, as the appellants have successfully qualified the suitability test, they could not have been deprived of their legitimate right of promotion only on account of lower placement in the merit list.” The Court further stated, “the appellants are certainly entitled for promotion from the same date the other officers from the select list prepared by the High Court of Jharkhand have been appointed to the post of District Judge.” The Court also clarified that, “they shall also be entitled for all consequential service benefits, including, seniority, increments, notional pay fixation etc., however, they shall not be entitled for any back wages.”

Key Takeaways

• For the 65% promotional quota, suitability is the primary criterion, not just comparative merit.
• Judicial officers who qualify the suitability test cannot be denied promotion solely based on their lower placement in the merit list.
• Promotions should be granted from the same date as other officers in the select list, with consequential service benefits, but without back wages.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants shall be entitled for notional promotion from the date other officers have been promoted to the post of District Judge in terms of notification dated 30.05.2019. They shall also be entitled for all consequential service benefits, including seniority, increments, notional pay fixation etc., however, they shall not be entitled for any back wages.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for the 65% promotional quota, once a judicial officer qualifies the suitability test, they cannot be denied promotion solely based on a comparative merit list. This clarifies the position of law established in Ravi Kumar Dhansukhlal Maheta and Another vs. High Court of Gujarat and Others [2024 SCC Online SC 972], emphasizing that the suitability of each candidate should be tested on their own merit and not through comparative assessment. This is a change from the previous position where promotions were solely based on the merit list after the suitability test.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand & Ors. clarifies that for promotions under the 65% quota in the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service, suitability is paramount. Once a judicial officer qualifies the suitability test, they cannot be denied promotion solely based on a comparative merit list. This decision ensures that qualified officers are not unfairly deprived of their legitimate right to promotion and clarifies the distinction between the 65% quota based on merit-cum-seniority and the 10% quota based strictly on merit.