+91 964 334 1948
04 Nov 2025, 04:02 PM
The Supreme Court today reserved its judgment on the issue whether there should be a quota for the promotion of serving judicial officers as District Judge posts.
The 5-judge Bench of Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi is considering whether to lay down uniform pan-India guidelines to determine the inter-se seniority in the judicial service. The Court is examining the issue of whether there should be a quota in the District Judge posts for the promotion of judicial officers who joined the service at the entry level. This is to address the problem of career stagnation faced by officers who join the judicial service at entry-level posts. Another suggestion before the bench is that serving officers can be given weightage in tune with their experience.
During the hearing today, Sr Advocate Gopal Shankaranarayanan appearing for few intervenors(Direct recruits) submitted that there was no empirical data on whether judges from the promotees category or direct recruits serve better in the position of district judge.
"If there is data that promotee judges serve better than direct recruits, or direct recruits serve better than promotee judges or 1:1 ratio, that data has not been found- if the data is not there, the link is not there. The link between the necessary ratio between direct recruits and promotees, the fact that one is better than the other in serving the ends of justice, that I cannot find."
He then pointed out that none of the Supreme Court judges at present have come from district judiciary through the promotee category.
At this juncture, Sr Advocate Vibha Makhija interjected to highlight that two of the Chief Justices of India in the past came through the service route.
Notably, Justice KG Balakrishnan was amongst the two CJIs who started as a magistrate.
The CJI weighed in to clarify that the purpose the present proceedings is not draw comparision of competency between the two categories but to find an ideal solutio for strengthening the Justice delivery mechanism.
He said : "We are basically not going on a dispute between direct recruits and promotees, we are trying to find out what should be the best system in order to enhance the efficiency of adjudication of justice."
Gopal S stressed that any guidelines which the Court plans on laying down should be based on enough data highlighting errors with the roster system at present. He added that having a separate quota for the promotees would be making a sub-cadre within the common cadre of district judges.
Sr Advocate Jaideep Gupta also appearing for a few intervenors also emphasised that so far the roster system established with the All India Judges Association Case 2002 has worked well for appointments and no arguments have been raised with regard failure of the roster system.
Citing the example of appointments in West Bengal, he pointed out that out of 59 posts of district judges, 27 are direct recruits and 32 are promotees; thus the promotees outnumber the direct recruits.
Taking the example of West Bengal, he stressed that "if the seniority rule is correct at the base, then it will reflect at the level of the principal district judge also, subject only to performance."
Justice Kant however pointed out that giving significance to the roster system at the entry level will overlook the potential candidates from the selection grade and supertime scale.
Gupta also referred to the third suggestion given by the amicus :
"(3) Alternatively, it is suggested that this Hon'ble Court may accept the recommendations of the Shetty Commission and grant weightage to Promotee District Judges for experience in terms of 1 year seniority for every 5 years of judicial service, subject to maximum of 3 years. It is further submitted that these additional years of seniority may be considered as service in the District Judge cadre."
He pointed out the following issues in this regard : (1) the promotees will be given weightage based on their lower cadres, civil judge (Jr) or (Sr), which inevitably means that the longest serving district judge will always be senior to everybody else;
(2) It will not only push down direct recruits, but also direct recruits who have been district civil judges in the past and have come in the direct recruit quota as per the recent decision in Rajnish KV v. K Deepa; (3) It will also push down the LDCE, because the LDCE will have necessarily have less experience as civil judge than those who enter the services and remain for longer.
Sr Advocate Jayant Bhushan appeared for one of the intervenors who qualified as a direct recruit but previously served as a civil judge.
Bhushan flagged concerns over having a quota for promotees from the civil judiciary. He also stressed that the quota would end, creating a sub-cadre, where the promotee candidates will be competing with fellow promotee candidates.
In the alternative, he suggested that the quota benefit be extended to those direct recruits who had previously served as a civil judge for few years like in the case of his client. He stressed :
Sr Advocate Rajiv Shakdher appeared for few direct recruits from the UP Judicial Services. He briefly submitted that in UP as per data, the promotee judges are more in number. Except for Bihar and HP, the rest of the states, the promotees seem to be in healthy numbers.
Sr Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar appearing as the amicus in the matter outlined the various disparities in the representation of the promotees in the appointment as district judges across the states. He also submitted 4 main suggestions that the bench could consider in ensuring adequate representation of the promotees.
Sr Adv Vibha Makhija, appeared for the LDCE candidates.
Sr Advocates V Giri, Rakesh Dwivedi, Maninder Acharya, PS Patwalia, Jaideep Gupta appeared for various High Courts and mainly contended that the suggestions of the amicus would not be practical as the roster system has been successful in making appointments and introducing a quota for appointments would end up making a sub-cadre within the cadre of district judges.
What Are The 4 Suggestions Given By The Amicus?
Sr Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, appearing as the amicus has submitted the following suggestions to ensure adequate representation of promotees in the appointment of district judges across states :
(1) It is thus suggested that for appointment to the post of District Judge (Selection Grade)/ District Judge (Super Time Scale)/ Principal District Judges a quota of 1:1 for Promotee District Judges and Direct Recruit District Judges may be created. The principle of “merit cum seniority” for selection to these posts can then be applied within the said quota;
(2) Alternatively, the zone of consideration for appointment to the post of District Judge (Selection Grade) and District Judge (Super Time-Scale) should comprise of 50% officers from the Direct Recruited District Judges and 50% from Promotee District Judges. Thereafter, the appointment would be made on the recommendation of the respective High Courts, on the basis of “merit cum seniority”. Thus, in the zone of consideration, 50% officers shall be the Senior most Promotee District Judges and 50% officers shall be the senior most Directly Recruited District Judges.
(3) Alternatively, it is suggested that this Hon'ble Court may accept the recommendations of the Shetty Commission and grant weightage to Promotee District Judges for experience in terms of 1 year seniority for every 5 years of judicial service, subject to maximum of 3 years. It is further submitted that these additional years of seniority may be considered as service in the District Judge cadre;
(4) Alternatively, this Hon'ble Court may consider the recommendation made by the Committee of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh which had recommended three separate seniority lists in respect of (a) Promotee District Judge (Regular Promotion) (b) Promotee District Judge (LDCE) (c) Direct Recruit District Judge, in the ratio of their overall cadre strength of 50:25:25 and selection to the higher posts in the cadre of District Judges be made on basis of such seniority list.
What Led To The Reference?
Earlier, the said bench had sought the responses of the High Courts and the State Governments, expressing concerns over the issue. Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar, the amicus curiae in case, had highlighted an "anomalous situation" in many States, where Judicial Officers recruited as Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) often do not reach even the level of the Principal District Judge, leave alone reaching the position of the High Court Judge. The amicus stated that this situation often discouraged bright youngsters from joining the judiciary.
While referring to the larger bench, the Court considered the aspect put forward by the amicus, for a proposal to reserve a certain percentage of posts from the cadre of Principal District Judges for the promotion of Judges selected initially from the JMFC Cadre. During the last hearing, Senior Advocate R Basant opposed this proposal, saying that this will deny opportunities to meritorious candidates who wait for direct recruitment as District Judges.
In the reference order, the bench observed that a balance will have to be struck between the competing claims. However, this would involve consideration of some of the earlier orders passed by 3-judge benches.
The reference order observed :
"It cannot be disputed that the judges who were initially appointed as CJ(Civil Judges) gain rich experience since they have been serving in the judiciary for a number of decades. Furthermore, every judicial officer, be it one who was initially recruited as CJ or one who was directly recruited as a District Judge, has an aspiration to reach at least up to the position of a High Court Judge.
We are, therefore, of the view that a proper balance has to be struck between the competing claims. However, this issue would involve consideration of some of the judgments and orders passed by Benches comprising of three learned judges of this Court. Therefore, in order to put the entire controversy at rest and provide a meaningful and long-lasting solution, we are of the considered view that it will be appropriate if the issue is considered by a by a Constitution Bench consisting of five learned Judges of this Court."
Case Title: ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION vs UNION OF INDIA
Reports of previous hearings :