Supreme Court Stays Promotions of District Judges Based on Seniority-cum-Merit: Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta vs. High Court of Gujarat (2023)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: May 12, 2023

Citation: 2023 INSC 532

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

Can a High Court promote judges to the cadre of District Judge based on seniority after achieving a minimum qualifying score, or should the promotions be based primarily on merit? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case concerning promotions within the Gujarat judiciary. The court examined whether the High Court of Gujarat correctly applied the principle of “merit-cum-seniority” in its promotion process for District Judges. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, with the majority opinion authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The case originated from a challenge to the promotion list of Senior Civil Judges to the cadre of District Judge in Gujarat. The petitioners, who were Senior Civil Judges, contended that the High Court of Gujarat had violated the principle of “merit-cum-seniority” by prioritizing seniority over merit in the promotion process.

The High Court had issued a recruitment notice on April 12, 2022, for promotions to the post of District Judge, specifying that the promotions would be based on the principle of merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test. This test comprised four components: a written test, evaluation of annual confidential reports, assessment of average disposal of cases, and evaluation of judgments.

The petitioners argued that despite scoring higher marks than some of the selected candidates, they were not promoted. They alleged that the High Court had effectively applied the principle of “seniority-cum-merit” instead of “merit-cum-seniority.” The State Government, despite being aware of the writ petition, issued a notification on April 18, 2023, promoting 68 candidates, subject to the outcome of the petition.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The petitioners, Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta and another, filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenging the select list dated March 10, 2023, issued by the High Court of Gujarat. The Supreme Court issued notice on April 13, 2023. Despite the notice, the State Government issued a notification on April 18, 2023, promoting 68 candidates, but made it subject to the outcome of the writ petition.

Legal Framework

The core legal framework for this case is based on the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005, particularly Rule 5(1)(i), which states:

“65 percent of posts shall be filled in by promotion from amongst the Senior Civil Judge on the basis of principle of merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test.”

This rule was framed in accordance with the directions given by the Supreme Court in All India Judges’ Association and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2002) 4 SCC 247, which mandated that promotions to the Higher Judicial Services should be based on “merit-cum-seniority”. The recruitment notice issued by the High Court also reiterated this principle.

Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments:

• The petitioners argued that the High Court had misinterpreted the principle of “merit-cum-seniority” by giving undue weight to seniority after a minimum qualifying score was achieved in the suitability test.
• They contended that the High Court’s method effectively turned the process into “seniority-cum-merit,” which is contrary to the rules and the Supreme Court’s directions.
• The petitioners highlighted that they had secured higher marks in the suitability test than some of the promoted candidates, yet they were overlooked.
• They relied on the decisions in 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.
• They argued that once the criteria for eligibility have been mentioned in the recruitment notice, namely, “merit-cum-seniority” and “suitability test”, thereafter, it was not open for the High Court and the State to include the additional requirement / qualification of seniority either during the process or after the selection process. Reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Hemani Malhotra Vs. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11.

Respondents’ Arguments (High Court and Promotees):

• The High Court argued that it had followed the correct procedure by first setting a minimum benchmark for merit and then considering seniority for those who met the benchmark.
• They contended that this method was in line with the decision of the Supreme Court in C.P. Kalra Vs Air India (1994) Supp. 1 SCC 454.
• The High Court also stated that the same procedure has been followed since 2011, and that other High Courts like Andhra Pradesh and Orissa have followed a similar approach.
• The promotees argued that “merit-cum-seniority” does not mean that length of service has no relevance and that a written exam only tests academic knowledge and not practical experience.
• They relied on the decision of this Court in the case of V.K. Srivastava and Ors. Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., (2008) 9 SCC 77, to argue that seniority in the feeder category has to be maintained.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

✓ Whether the High Court of Gujarat correctly applied the principle of “merit-cum-seniority” in promoting Senior Civil Judges to the cadre of District Judge.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ All India Judges’ Association and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2002) 4 SCC 247: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that promotions to the Higher Judicial Services should be based on “merit-cum-seniority”.

✓ B.V. Sivaiah and Ors. Vs. K. Addanki Babu and Ors., (1998) 6 SCC 720: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that greater emphasis is to be given on merit and ability and seniority plays a less significant role in “merit-cum-seniority”.

✓ State of Kerala and Anr. Vs. N. M. Thomas and Ors., (1976) 2 SCC 310: The Court used this case to distinguish between “merit-cum-seniority” and “seniority-cum-merit”.

✓ Shriram Tomar and Anr. Vs. Praveen Kumar Jaggi and Ors., (2019) 5 SCC 736: The Court used this case to highlight the importance of merit in promotions.

✓ Manoj Parihar and Others Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors., SLP (C) No. 11039 of 2022: The Court used this case to highlight the importance of merit in promotions.

✓ Hemani Malhotra Vs. High Court of Delhi, (2008) 7 SCC 11: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that once the criteria for eligibility have been mentioned in the recruitment notice, no additional requirement / qualification can be added during or after the selection process.

✓ C.P. Kalra Vs Air India (1994) Supp. 1 SCC 454: The Court distinguished this case, noting that it was prior to the decision in All India Judges’ Association and that the rules in the present case specifically provide for merit-cum-seniority.

✓ V.K. Srivastava and Ors. Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., (2008) 9 SCC 77: The Court distinguished this case, stating that there was no direct controversy before the Court on the principle of “merit-cum-seniority” and/or what can be said to be the “merit-cum-seniority”.

✓ Rajendra Kumar Srivastava and Ors. Vs. Samyut Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Ors., (2010) 1 SCC 335: The Court relied on this case 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.

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 its earlier judgment in All India Judges’ Association and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2002) 4 SCC 247. The Court emphasized that merit should be the primary consideration in promotions to the Higher Judicial Services, and seniority should only play a role when merit is approximately equal. The Court was also concerned that the High Court’s method of first setting a minimum benchmark for merit and then considering seniority effectively turned the process into “seniority-cum-merit,” which is contrary to the established legal principles.

Fact:Law Ratio:

The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on the interpretation of legal principles and precedents, with a lesser emphasis on the specific factual aspects of the case.

The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s interpretation of “merit-cum-seniority,” emphasizing that merit should be the primary factor in promotions. The Court found that the High Court’s methodology of setting a minimum merit benchmark and then prioritizing seniority was a misapplication of the principle.

The court observed that the correct method would be to prepare the merit list on the basis of the four components as mentioned in the Recruitment Notice, from amongst those Senior Civil 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.

The Court stated, “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). Therefore, the High Court has adopted the wrong method.”

The Court also noted, “Merely because, a wrong method is being adopted cannot be a ground to perpetuate the same, if it is found to be illegal and/or contrary to the directions issued by this Court, more particularly, in the case of All India Judges’ Association and Ors. (supra).”

The Court further observed, “As observed, while applying the principle of “merit-cum-seniority”, greater emphasis is given on merit and ability and seniority plays a less significant role. 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.”

Key Takeaways

✓ Promotions to the cadre of District Judge must be based primarily on merit, with seniority playing a secondary role.

✓ Setting a minimum qualifying score and then prioritizing seniority is not a valid interpretation of “merit-cum-seniority.”

✓ High Courts must adhere to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in All India Judges’ Association and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2002) 4 SCC 247.

✓ Wrong practices cannot be perpetuated merely because they have been followed for some time.

Directions

The Supreme Court stayed the implementation of the Select List dated March 10, 2023, and the subsequent Notification dated April 18, 2023, issued by the State Government. The promotees were directed to revert to their original posts. However, the stay order was confined to those promotees whose names did not figure within the first 68 candidates in the Merit List on the basis of the merits.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the principle of “merit-cum-seniority” requires that merit should be the primary consideration for promotions to the Higher Judicial Services, and seniority should play a secondary role, only when merit is approximately equal. This case clarifies that setting a minimum qualifying score and then prioritizing seniority is not a valid interpretation of “merit-cum-seniority”. This judgment reinforces the Supreme Court’s earlier position in All India Judges’ Association and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors., (2002) 4 SCC 247 and emphasizes the importance of merit in judicial appointments.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta vs. High Court of Gujarat (2023) is a significant ruling that clarifies the interpretation of “merit-cum-seniority” in the context of judicial promotions. The Court’s emphasis on merit as the primary factor and its rejection of the High Court’s method underscore the importance of upholding established legal principles. This judgment serves as a reminder that wrong practices cannot be perpetuated and that promotions must be based on a fair assessment of merit. The decision also reinforces the Supreme Court’s commitment to maintaining the integrity of the judicial system by ensuring that promotions are based on merit rather than seniority.