Supreme Court Upholds Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules in Promotion Dispute (24 April 2020)

LEGAL ISSUE: Validity of promotion criteria based on Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) gradings for District Judge positions. CASE TYPE: Service Law. Case Name: Sujata Kohli vs. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi & Ors. [Judgment Date]: 24 April 2020

Date of the Judgment: 24 April 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 398
Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J. and Dinesh Maheshwari, J. (authored the judgment).
Can a High Court set specific grading criteria for promotions within its judicial service, and can these criteria be applied to existing officers? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS). The core issue revolved around the validity of promotion criteria based on Annual Confidential Reports (ACR) gradings for the post of District Judge. The Court examined whether the High Court’s criteria were fair, reasonable, and constitutionally valid.

Case Background

The appellant, Sujata Kohli, was a member of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS), having been directly appointed on 27 November 2002 and later confirmed as Additional District and Sessions Judge (Permanent) on 25 November 2004. The case arose from her challenge to the promotion criteria set by the High Court of Delhi for appointments to the post of District Judge and Sessions Judge or equivalent. From May 2011 to January 2014, she handled cases under the Hindu Marriage Act and other matrimonial matters, disposing of approximately 2589 cases, including 478 amicable settlements. Her ACR gradings for the relevant years were ‘B+’ (Good) for 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013, and ‘A’ (Very Good) for 2014. The appellant became aware of the new promotion criteria when judicial officers of her batch were being considered for promotion in November 2014. She then made representations against the new criteria, which were ultimately rejected, leading to her filing a writ petition in the High Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially filed a writ petition before the High Court of Delhi challenging the Full Court resolutions dated 28 April 2009, 15 January 2010, and 27 January 2011, which prescribed the criteria for promotion to the post of District Judge/Principal Judge, Family Court. The High Court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of the criteria. The High Court held that the criteria were not arbitrary and were implemented in a phased manner. The High Court also found no merit in the appellant’s argument that she was not aware of the criteria. The High Court did, however, make observations on the desirability of uniform norms for awarding ACR gradings.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves the interpretation of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970, particularly Rule 7, which governs recruitment to the posts of District Judge. Rule 7(1) specifies that 65% of posts are filled by promotion from Civil Judges (Senior Division) based on merit-cum-seniority, 10% by promotion based on merit through a competitive exam, and 25% by direct recruitment. Rule 7A specifies that promotions under clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 shall be made by selection on the basis of merit-cum-seniority. Rules 12 to 15 deal with appointment, probation, and confirmation. Rules 18 to 20 specify pay scales and methods for assessment for granting Selection Grade and Super Time Scale. Rule 27, the residuary clause, states that matters not covered by the rules will be governed by rules applicable to officers of comparable status in the Indian Administrative Service (IAS). The Supreme Court also considered Article 233 of the Constitution of India, which deals with the appointment of District Judges.

Rule 27 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970 states:
“RESIDUARY MATTERS:- In respect of all such matters regarding the conditions of service for which no provision or insufficient provision has been made in these rules, the rules, directions or orders for the time being in force, and applicable to officers of comparable status in the Indian Administrative Service and serving in connection with the affairs of the Union of India shall regulate the conditions of such service.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right, and the new criteria were applied retrospectively, violating this right.
• She contended that the change in criteria was never communicated to her, nor was it notified, thus violating the principles of natural justice.
• The appellant asserted that the High Court’s decision to apply criteria similar to those for the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) was incorrect, as judges and administrative officers cannot be treated equally, citing the decision in All India Judges Association v. Union of India: (1993) 4 SCC 288.
• She argued that the ‘B+’ grading she received was effectively an adverse entry, as it made her ineligible for promotion under the new criteria, and that she should have been informed of the gradings of her juniors, as per Dev Dutt v. Union of India: (2008) 8 SCC 725.
• The appellant submitted that the lack of an objective criteria for evaluating judicial officers led to arbitrary gradings.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondent argued that the posts of District Judge and Principal Judge, Family Court are selection posts, and appointments are based on merit-cum-seniority, not as a matter of right.
• The respondent submitted that the criteria were adopted to ensure the selection of the most meritorious candidates, in line with Rule 27 of the Rules of 1970 and the norms prescribed by the Government of India.
• The respondent contended that the appellant was aware of the criteria, as they were equivalent to the revised promotion criteria in the IAS, and that Rule 27 of the Rules of 1970 made the appellant deemed to be having knowledge of the same.
• The respondent distinguished the cases cited by the appellant, arguing that the High Court did not change the eligibility criteria but merely evolved a selection criteria.
• The respondent stated that the appellant was informed of her ACRs and had accepted most of them without protest.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the appellant was denied fair and reasonable consideration for promotion due to the criteria laid down in the impugned resolutions.
2. Whether the appellant suffered any prejudice in the matter of ACR gradings.

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:

Cases:

• All India Judges Association v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 288 (Supreme Court of India): Cited by the appellant to argue that judges and administrative officers cannot be treated equally. The Court distinguished this case, stating that Rule 27 does not equate judicial officers with executive officers, but provides for service conditions in matters where the rules are silent.
• Chandramouleshwar Prasad v. Patna High Court: AIR 1970 SC 370 (Supreme Court of India): Cited to emphasize the primacy of the High Court’s views in the appointment of District Judges. The Court noted that the High Court is best suited to assess the merits of candidates for promotion.
• State of Bihar v. Bal Mukund Sah: 2000 (4) SCC 640 (Supreme Court of India): Cited to highlight the High Court’s authority in matters of appointment of District Judges.
• Dev Dutt v. Union of India: (2008) 8 SCC 725 (Supreme Court of India): Cited by the appellant to argue that a ‘B+’ grading was effectively an adverse entry and should have been communicated. The Court distinguished this case, stating that the appellant was informed of her ACR gradings.
• Ajit Singh and Ors. (II) v. State of Punjab and Ors.: (1999) 7 SCC 209 (Supreme Court of India): Cited to explain the fundamental right to be considered for promotion. The Court used this case to highlight the importance of equal opportunity in promotions.
• Central Council for Research in Ayurveda & Siddha and Anr. v. Dr. K. Santhakumari: (2001) 5 SCC 60 (Supreme Court of India): Cited to emphasize the importance of merit in promotions based on merit-cum-seniority. The Court noted that merit is the primary factor in such promotions.
• Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Limited and Ors. v. Seema Sharma and Ors.: (2009) 7 SCC 311 (Supreme Court of India): Cited to explain the difference between merit-cum-seniority and seniority-cum-merit. The Court noted that merit-cum-seniority places greater emphasis on merit.
• State of U.P. v. Mahesh Narain : (2013) 4 SCC 169 (Supreme Court of India): The Court distinguished this case, stating that the High Court did not change the eligibility criteria but merely evolved a selection criteria.
• Nirmal Chandra Bhattachargee & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.: 1991 Supp (2) SCC 363 (Supreme Court of India): The Court distinguished this case, stating that the fact situation therein was entirely different.
• Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India: (2013) 9 SCC 566 (Supreme Court of India): Cited to reaffirm the requirement of communication of every entry in ACR to the employee concerned.
• Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan: AIR 1967 SC 1910 (Supreme Court of India): Cited to explain that promotion to selection grade posts is primarily based on merit and not on seniority alone.
• State of Orissa v. Durga Charan Das: AIR 1966 SC 1547 (Supreme Court of India): Cited to explain that promotion to a selection post is not a matter of right which can be claimed merely by seniority.
• Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor: (1973)2 SCC 836 (Supreme Court of India): Cited to explain that merit and suitability should be the governing consideration for promotion and that seniority should play only a secondary role.
• B.V. Sivaiah v. K. Addanki Babu: (1998) 6 SCC 720 (Supreme Court of India): Cited to explain that the principle of “merit-cum-seniority” lays greater emphasis on merit and ability and seniority plays a less significant role.
• Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India: (1978) 1 SCC 248 (Supreme Court of India): Cited to explain that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution.

Legal Provisions:

• Article 14 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
• Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India: Guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of employment under the State.
• Article 233 of the Constitution of India: Deals with the appointment of District Judges.
• Rule 7 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970: Governs recruitment to the posts of District Judge.
• Rule 7A of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970: Specifies that promotions shall be made by selection on the basis of merit-cum-seniority.
• Rule 18 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970: Specifies pay scales and methods for assessment for granting Selection Grade and Super Time Scale.
• Rule 27 of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970: The residuary clause that states that matters not covered by the rules will be governed by rules applicable to officers of comparable status in the Indian Administrative Service (IAS).

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court held that the appellant was not denied fair consideration for promotion and did not suffer any prejudice in the matter of ACR gradings. The Court found that the High Court’s criteria were not retrospective, were implemented gradually, and were based on merit-cum-seniority. The Court also held that the appellant was deemed to be aware of the criteria and that the High Court was within its rights to set such standards for promotion.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court considered All India Judges Association v. Union of India (1993) 4 SCC 288* to state that the High Court was within its rights to frame the rules for its officers and that the residuary clause did not equate the judicial officers with the executive officers. The Court relied on Chandramouleshwar Prasad v. Patna High Court: AIR 1970 SC 370* to emphasize the primacy of the High Court’s views in the appointment of District Judges. The Court distinguished Dev Dutt v. Union of India: (2008) 8 SCC 725* by stating that the appellant was informed of her ACR gradings. The Court relied on Ajit Singh and Ors. (II) v. State of Punjab and Ors.: (1999) 7 SCC 209* to highlight the importance of equal opportunity in promotions. The Court relied on Central Council for Research in Ayurveda & Siddha and Anr. v. Dr. K. Santhakumari: (2001) 5 SCC 60* and Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Limited and Ors. v. Seema Sharma and Ors.: (2009) 7 SCC 311* to emphasize the importance of merit in promotions based on merit-cum-seniority. The Court distinguished State of U.P. v. Mahesh Narain : (2013) 4 SCC 169* and Nirmal Chandra Bhattachargee & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.: 1991 Supp (2) SCC 363* by stating that the fact situation therein was entirely different. The Court relied on Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India: (2013) 9 SCC 566* to reaffirm the requirement of communication of every entry in ACR to the employee concerned.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following:

• The High Court’s authority to set promotion criteria for its judicial officers.
• The phased implementation of the new criteria, which the court viewed as reasonable.
• The fact that the appellant was aware or deemed to be aware of the criteria, as they were based on IAS norms.
• The importance of merit in promotions, especially for higher posts.
• The fact that the appellant was informed of her ACR gradings and did not challenge them at the appropriate time.

The Court emphasized that the High Court’s decision to implement the new criteria was not arbitrary but was a necessary step to ensure that only the most meritorious candidates were promoted to higher positions. The Court also highlighted that the appellant had failed to demonstrate any prejudice or violation of her fundamental rights. The court also noted that the appellant was not entitled to the gradings of other officers.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative argument that the lack of objective criteria for evaluating judicial officers led to arbitrary gradings, but rejected it. The court noted that the system for awarding ACR grades was applied equally to all judicial officers and that the appellant had failed to show any legal requirement on the respondent establishment to supply to her anything other than the overall grading. The court also noted that the appellant did not challenge her ‘B+’ gradings in the years 2010, 2012 and 2013, and that she hadaccepted the same. The Court also noted that the appellant had received ‘A’ grading in 2014 which was the highest grading possible.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sujata Kohli v. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi & Ors. (2020) INSC 398, is a significant ruling in the domain of service law. It reaffirms the authority of High Courts to set promotion criteria for their judicial officers, provided that such criteria are fair, reasonable, and non-arbitrary. The Court emphasized the importance of merit in promotions, particularly for higher posts, and upheld the validity of using ACR gradings as a basis for promotion. The judgment also clarified that employees are expected to be aware of the rules and regulations governing their service and that they should challenge adverse entries in their ACRs at the appropriate time. The ruling underscores the need for merit-based promotions in the judicial service and provides valuable guidance for future cases involving similar issues.

Key Takeaways:

• High Courts have the authority to set promotion criteria for their judicial officers.
• Promotion criteria based on ACR gradings are valid, provided they are fair and non-arbitrary.
• Merit is a crucial factor in promotions, especially for higher posts.
• Employees are expected to be aware of the rules and regulations governing their service.
• Adverse entries in ACRs should be challenged at the appropriate time.

This case highlights the balance between the right of an employee to be considered for promotion and the need for the employer to select the most meritorious candidates for higher positions. The Supreme Court’s judgment provides a clear framework for understanding the legal principles applicable to such disputes.