Supreme Court Stays Promotions of District Judges Based on Seniority-Cum-Merit: Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta & Anr. vs. High Court of Gujarat and Ors. (2023)

Date of the Judgment: 12 May 2023

Citation: (2023) INSC 462

Judges: M.R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Can a High Court, while promoting Senior Civil Judges to the cadre of District Judge, prioritize seniority over merit, despite rules mandating merit-cum-seniority? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question, examining the correct interpretation of “merit-cum-seniority” in the context of judicial promotions. This case revolves around a challenge to the promotion process adopted by the High Court of Gujarat, where the petitioners argued that the principle of merit-cum-seniority was overlooked in favor of seniority-cum-merit. The bench, comprising Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, issued a stay order on the promotions, emphasizing the importance of merit in judicial appointments. The majority opinion was authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case originated from a challenge to a select list issued by the High Court of Gujarat on March 10, 2023, for the promotion of Senior Civil Judges to the cadre of District Judge (65% quota). The petitioners contended that the promotions were made in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Rule 5 of the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005, as well as the Recruitment Notice dated April 12, 2022.

The Supreme Court, in All India Judges’ Association and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors., (2002) 4 SCC 247, had directed that recruitment to the Higher Judicial Services (District Judges) should be based on the principle of “merit-cum-seniority” and a suitability test. Following this, the High Court of Gujarat framed the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005, which were later amended in 2011 to increase the promotion quota from 50% to 65%.

The High Court issued a Recruitment Notice on April 12, 2022, for promotions to the cadre of District Judges, specifying that promotions would be based on the principle of merit-cum-seniority and a suitability test. The notice also outlined the components of the suitability test, which included a written test, evaluation of annual confidential reports, assessment of average disposal of cases, and evaluation of judgments.

After conducting the written test on October 16, 2022, the High Court declared a list of 175 qualified judicial officers on November 17, 2022. The High Court then called for month-wise lists of judgments disposed of by the qualified candidates. On March 10, 2023, the High Court published a select list of Senior Civil Judges for promotion. The petitioners, despite securing high marks, were not recommended for promotion, leading them to file the writ petition on March 27, 2023.

Despite the notice from the Supreme Court, the State Government issued a notification on April 18, 2023, for the appointment of 68 candidates, stating that the appointments were subject to the outcome of the writ petition.

Timeline:

Arguments

The petitioners, represented by Shri R. Basant, argued that the promotions were illegal and contrary to Rule 5(1)(i) of the Rules, 2005, and the Recruitment Notice, which mandated promotions based on the principle of merit-cum-seniority. They contended that the High Court and the State Government had instead applied the principle of seniority-cum-merit, overlooking the merit of candidates. The petitioners emphasized that they had secured higher marks than many of the promoted candidates, yet were not selected.

The petitioners relied on several judgments, including B.V. Sivaiah and Ors. vs. K. Addanki Babu and Ors., (1998) 6 SCC 720, State of Kerala and Anr. vs. N. M. Thomas and Ors., (1976) 2 SCC 310, Shriram Tomar and Anr. vs. Praveen Kumar Jaggi and Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 736, and Manoj Parihar and Others vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors., SLP (C) No. 11039 of 2022, to support their argument that merit should be the primary consideration in promotions based on merit-cum-seniority.

The petitioners argued that the High Court’s method of setting a minimum qualifying mark and then prioritizing seniority was essentially seniority-cum-merit, not merit-cum-seniority. They cited C.P. Kalra vs Air India (1994) Supp. 1 SCC 454, where the court had ruled that rules mentioning merit-cum-seniority could be interpreted as seniority-cum-merit based on the prescribed method. The petitioners also highlighted that other High Courts, such as the High Court of Jharkhand and the High Court of Calcutta, had followed a different method, prioritizing merit in promotions.

The respondents, including the High Court and the promoted candidates, argued that the High Court had followed the correct procedure, which had been in use since 2011. They contended that the suitability test included four components, and candidates had to secure a minimum of 40% marks in each component and 50% aggregate. Only after achieving this benchmark, seniority was considered. They argued that this process ensured that merit was given due consideration before seniority. The respondents also argued that the petitioners had participated in the process without any objection and were therefore estopped from challenging it.

The respondents relied on the decision in C.P. Kalra (supra), arguing that the method adopted by the High Court was in consonance with this decision. They also contended that the decisions relied upon by the petitioners were not applicable to the recruitment of District Judges and that the rules in other states were different from those in Gujarat. They argued that merit-cum-seniority does not mean that length of service has no relevance and that a written examination tests academic knowledge, not practical experience.

The promotees also argued that the directions of the Supreme Court in All India Judges’ Association and Ors. (supra), provided for two methods of promotion, one on the basis of merit-cum-seniority and the other strictly on the basis of merit. They argued that the method adopted by the High Court was in line with the first method, where seniority in the feeder cadre has to be maintained. They cited V.K. Srivastava and Ors. vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., (2008) 9 SCC 77 to support their argument that seniority has to be maintained in promotions based on merit-cum-seniority.

Innovativeness of the argument: The petitioners innovatively argued that the High Court’s method, though termed “merit-cum-seniority,” was essentially “seniority-cum-merit,” by setting a minimum qualifying mark and then prioritizing seniority. This argument highlighted the discrepancy between the stated principle and the actual implementation.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the court addressed was:

• Whether the High Court of Gujarat, while making promotions to the cadre of District Judge, correctly applied the principle of “merit-cum-seniority” as mandated by the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005, and the Recruitment Notice dated 12.04.2022, or whether it incorrectly applied the principle of “seniority-cum-merit”.
• Whether the method adopted by the High Court of Gujarat in preparing the Select List for promotion to the post of District Judge was in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in the case of All India Judges’ Association and Ors. (supra).

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• All India Judges’ Association and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors., (2002) 4 SCC 247 – This case provided the foundation for the principle of merit-cum-seniority in promotions to the Higher Judicial Services. The Supreme Court had directed that 50% of the posts in the Higher Judicial Service must be filled by promotion on the basis of the principle of merit-cum-seniority. This case also directed the High Courts to devise a test to ascertain the legal knowledge of the candidates.
• B.V. Sivaiah and Ors. vs. K. Addanki Babu and Ors., (1998) 6 SCC 720 – This case clarified the distinction between merit-cum-seniority and seniority-cum-merit, emphasizing that in merit-cum-seniority, greater emphasis is given on merit and ability, and seniority plays a less significant role.
• State of Kerala and Anr. vs. N. M. Thomas and Ors., (1976) 2 SCC 310 – This case was cited by the petitioners to support their argument that merit should be the primary consideration in promotions based on merit-cum-seniority.
• Shriram Tomar and Anr. vs. Praveen Kumar Jaggi and Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 736 – This case was also cited by the petitioners to support their argument that merit should be the primary consideration in promotions based on merit-cum-seniority.
• Manoj Parihar and Others vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors., SLP (C) No. 11039 of 2022 – This case was cited by the petitioners to support their argument that merit should be the primary consideration in promotions based on merit-cum-seniority.
• C.P. Kalra vs Air India (1994) Supp. 1 SCC 454 – This case was cited by the respondents to argue that rules mentioning merit-cum-seniority could be interpreted as seniority-cum-merit based on the prescribed method. The court distinguished this case, noting that it was prior to the decision in All India Judges’ Association and Ors. (supra).
• V.K. Srivastava and Ors. vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., (2008) 9 SCC 77 – This case was cited by the respondents to argue that seniority has to be maintained in promotions based on merit-cum-seniority. The court distinguished this case, noting that there was no direct controversy on the principle of merit-cum-seniority and that the law on the principle of merit-cum-seniority is settled by now.
• Rajendra Kumar Srivastava and Ors. vs. Samyut Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Ors., (2010) 1 SCC 335 – This case was cited to emphasize that while applying the principle of merit-cum-seniority, the seniority is to be given weight only when merit and ability are approximately equal.

Legal Provisions:

• Rule 5(1)(i) of the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 – This rule specifies that 65% of the posts in the cadre of District Judge shall be filled by promotion from amongst the Senior Civil Judges on the basis of the principle of merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions made by both parties and the authorities relied upon. The Court found that the High Court had erred in its interpretation and application of the principle of “merit-cum-seniority.”

The Court held that the High Court, by considering merit only for achieving a benchmark and then prioritizing seniority, had effectively applied the principle of “seniority-cum-merit,” which was contrary to the rules and the directions of the Supreme Court in All India Judges’ Association and Ors. (supra). The Court emphasized that in merit-cum-seniority, merit should be given greater emphasis, and seniority should be considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal.

The Court distinguished the cases cited by the respondents, noting that C.P. Kalra (supra) was decided before the All India Judges’ Association and Ors. (supra) judgment and that V.K. Srivastava (supra) did not have a direct controversy on the principle of merit-cum-seniority.

The Court concluded that the impugned Select List dated March 10, 2023, and the subsequent notification dated April 18, 2023, were illegal and unsustainable.

How each authority was viewed by the Court:

• All India Judges’ Association and Ors. (supra): The Court heavily relied on this case, stating that the High Court’s method was contrary to the directions issued in this case.
• B.V. Sivaiah and Ors. (supra): The Court followed this case to clarify the distinction between merit-cum-seniority and seniority-cum-merit.
• C.P. Kalra (supra): The Court distinguished this case, noting that it was prior to the decision in All India Judges’ Association and Ors. (supra).
• V.K. Srivastava (supra): The Court distinguished this case, noting that there was no direct controversy on the principle of merit-cum-seniority in this case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the principle of merit-cum-seniority as mandated by the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment in All India Judges’ Association and Ors. (supra) and the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005. The Court emphasized that the High Court’s method of prioritizing seniority after a minimum qualifying mark undermined the importance of merit in judicial promotions. The Court was also concerned that candidates with higher marks were denied promotion while those with lower marks were promoted, which was contrary to the principle of merit-cum-seniority.

The sentiment analysis of the reasons given by the Supreme Court shows a strong emphasis on upholding the principle of merit-cum-seniority, as mandated by the Supreme Court’s earlier judgment in All India Judges’ Association and Ors. (supra) and the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005. The Court was also critical of the High Court’s method of prioritizing seniority after a minimum qualifying mark, which undermined the importance of merit in judicial promotions.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The ratio of fact to law in this case is approximately 30:70, indicating that while the factual aspects of the case were considered, the legal principles and their interpretation played a more significant role in the Court’s decision. The court’s reasoning was heavily based on the interpretation of the principle of merit-cum-seniority and its application to the facts of the case.

Logical Reasoning:

The court considered the alternative interpretation that the High Court’s method was a valid way to apply merit-cum-seniority. However, the court rejected this interpretation, stating that the High Court’s method undermined the importance of merit and effectively applied the principle of seniority-cum-merit. The court reasoned that the correct method would be to prepare a merit list based on all components of the suitability test and then promote candidates solely on the basis of merit.

The Supreme Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:

• The High Court’s method of prioritizing seniority after setting a minimum qualifying mark was contrary to the principle of “merit-cum-seniority.”
• The High Court’s method was also contrary to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of All India Judges’ Association and Ors. (supra).
• The Court emphasized that in merit-cum-seniority, merit should be given greater emphasis, and seniority should be considered only when merit and ability are approximately equal.
• The Court found that candidates with higher marks were denied promotion while those with lower marks were promoted, which was contrary to the principle of merit-cum-seniority.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “The correct method would be to prepare the merit list on the basis of the four components as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the Recruitment Notice, from amongst those Senior Civil Judges (including ad-hoc Additional District Judges) having not less than two years of qualifying service in that cadre and thereafter to prepare the merit list on the basis of the aggregate marks obtained under different components and thereby to give the promotion solely on the basis of merit, then and then only, it can be said to be following the principle of merit-cum-seniority.”
• “Therefore, in the present case, while giving the promotion in the cadre of District Judge, the High Court has given a go-by to the principle of merit-cum-seniority, which this Court has emphasised in the case of All India Judges’ Association and Ors. (supra).”
• “As observed, while applying the principle of “merit-cum-seniority”, the seniority is to be given weight only when merit and ability are approximately equal…”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The bench consisted of two judges, both of whom agreed on the judgment.

The decision has significant implications for future cases involving promotions in the judiciary. It clarifies the correct interpretation of “merit-cum-seniority” and emphasizes the importance of merit in judicial appointments. It also serves as a reminder that High Courts must follow the directions of the Supreme Court and the relevant rules and regulations while making promotions.

TheSupreme Court’s decision has set a precedent that will ensure that merit is given due consideration in judicial promotions and that seniority is not given undue weightage.