Judiciary: Higher judiciary – District judges – Appointment – Promotion of Senior Civil Judges to the cadre of District Judge – Rules 2005 prescribed 65% posts in the cadre of District Judge to be filled by promotion amongst Senior Civil Judges on the basis of principle of merit cum seniority and passing of a suitability test – Issuance of select list by the High Court for promotion of Senior Civil Judges to the cadre of District Judge (65% quota) – Petitioners not recommended for promotion even though having higher marks than the ones promoted – Writ petition by the petitioners challenging the select list as being violative of Art. 14 and r. 5 of the 2005 Rules – Issuance of Notice – However, despite being served with the copy of the petition, the State Government vide notification dated 18.04.2023 notified the appointment of 68 candidates, subject to the ultimate outcome of the writ petition – Held: High Court considered the merit only for the purpose of achieving the benchmark and thereafter switched to the seniority-cum-merit and thereby gave a go-by to the principle of merit-cum-seniority – Method adopted by the High Court contrary to the observations made by this Court in All India Judges’ Association’s case and also contrary to the 2005 Rules and the Recruitment Notice – High Court adopted a wrong method – Thus, the impugned Selection List issued by the High Court and the subsequent Notification issued by the State Government granting promotion to the cadre of District Judge illegal and contrary to the relevant Rules and Regulations and even to the decision of this Court in the case of All India Judges’ Association and Ors.’s case, thus, not sustainable – State Government could have waited till the next date of hearing by this Court – At present the respective promotees have not assumed their posting on the promotional post, they have been sent for training, thus, the further implementation and operation of the Select List issued by the High Court and the subsequent Notification issued by the State Government is stayed – Constitution of India – Arts. 14, 32 – Gujarat State Judicial Services Rules, 2005.
All India Judges’ Association and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. (2002) 4 SCC 247 : [2002] 2 SCR 712 – relied upon.
B.V. Sivaiah and Ors. vs. K. Addanki Babu and Ors. (1998) 6 SCC 720 : [1998] 3 SCR 782; State of Kerala and Anr. vs. N. M. Thomas and Ors. (1976) 2 SCC 310 : [1976] 1 SCR 906; Shriram Tomar and Anr. vs. Praveen Kumar Jaggi and Ors. (2019) 5 SCC 736 : [2019] 6 SCR 590; Manoj Parihar and Others vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors. SLP (C) No. 11039 of 2022 decided on June 27, 2022; C.P. Kalra vs Air India (1994) Supp. 1 SCC 454; Hemani Malhotra Vs. High Court of Delhi (2008) 7 SCC 11 : [2008] 5 SCR 1066; V.K. Srivastava and Ors. vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. (2008) 9 SCC 77 : [2008] 13 SCR 24; Rajendra Kumar Srivastava and Ors. vs. Samyut Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Ors. (2010) 1 SCC 335 : [2009] 15 SCR 936 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.