Case Title: Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta & Anr. V. High Court of Gujarat & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition (C) No. 432 of 2023
Dated on: 17 May 2024
Coram: Hon’ble DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CHIEF JUSTICE OF INDIA, JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
FACTS OF THE CASE
Two Civil Judges (Senior Division) challenged the High Court of Gujarat’s method of promotion to the post of Additional District Judge against the 65% quota. The High Court issued a recruitment notice on April 12, 2022, for the promotion of 68 Civil Judges (Senior Division) to the post of Additional District Judge against the 65% quota. The notice specified that the promotion would be based on ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ and a Suitability Test. The Suitability Test consisted of four components: Written Test (Objective Type – MCQs), evaluation of last 5 years’ ACRs, assessment of last 5 years’ average disposal, and evaluation of judgments delivered in the last one year. The Written Test was conducted, and 175 candidates cleared it by securing a minimum of 40% marks. Thereafter, the High Court evaluated the ACRs, judgments, and disposal rates of these 175 candidates. Candidates who secured a minimum 40% marks in each component and a minimum aggregate of 50% marks in all four components were eligible for promotion. The High Court prepared the final Select List, which included the seniormost 68 candidates amongst the 149 eligible candidates which the petitioners allege to be principle of ‘Seniority-cum-Merit’ instead of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ which led to the promotion of candidates based on seniority rather than merit. Henceforth the petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, seeking relief against the High Court’s method of promotion.
ISSUES
- What is the scope of principle of the ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ in service jurisprudence.
- Whether promotion of Civil Judges (Senior Division) to the cadre of District Judges in accordance with Rule 5(1) of the 2005 Rules and the Recruitment Notice dated 12.04.2022 issued by the High Court of Gujarat is contrary to the principle of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ as laid down in All India Judges’ Association (3).
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
This article grants High Courts the power to issue certain writs for the enforcement of fundamental rights and for any other purpose.
Rule 5(1)(I) of the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005
This rule outlines the criteria for promotion to the cadre of District Judges, emphasizing the principle of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority.’ It requires that the selection for promotion should be based on merit while also considering seniority.
Article 235 of the Constitution of India
This article vests the control over district courts and courts subordinate thereto, including the posting and promotion of judicial officers, with the High Court.
Article 32 of The Constitution of India
Article 32 of the Constitution of India deals with the right to constitutional remedies. It is a fundamental right that empowers individuals to approach the Supreme Court directly for the enforcement of their fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. Article 32(2) authorizes the Supreme Court to issue directions, orders, or writs, including writs in the nature of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, quo warranto, and certiorari for the enforcement of such fundamental rights.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER
The petitioners, two Civil Judges (Senior Division), have contended that the High Court of Gujarat erred in applying the principle of ‘Seniority-cum-Merit’ in the recruitment process for promotion to the post of Additional District Judge against the 65% quota. The petitioners argue that the principle of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ means that seniority should be considered only in the event of a tie between candidates on their individual merit. Whereas, the High Court’s method of promotion, which assesses candidates based on a minimum level of merit and then selects the seniormost candidates, is equivalent to ‘Seniority-cum-Merit’. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that in the procedure that came to be followed by the High Court for promotion, seniority has been applied and given effect twice – once at the stage of preparation of the zone of consideration and then again at the stage of preparing the final Select List. The petitioners have referred the case of Rupa Rani Rakshit & Ors. v. Jharkhand Gramin Bank and the case of Dr. Kavita Kamboj v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana & Ors where merit of the candidates was given due importance by the court. They claimed that the High Court’s method of promotion, which prioritizes seniority over merit, is incorrect. The petitioners claim that the High Court’s method of promotion resulted in unfair treatment to them and other junior candidates who scored higher marks but were not selected due to their lower seniority.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS
ON BEHALF OF THE HIGH COURT OF GUJRAT:
The High Court of Gujarat has contended that the principle of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ should not be conflated with Merit. The High Court emphasizes that while merit is concerned only with the grade/credit of the candidate, ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ not only checks merit but also lays emphasis on seniority. The High Court argues that if the interpretation of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ as submitted by the petitioners is accepted, then the entire process of promotion would become solely based on merit and the aspect of seniority would be completely obliterated from the principle of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’. This would have a far-reaching effect, resulting in an amalgamation of the promotion process against 65% posts on the basis of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ and the process against 10% posts on the basis of strict merit in the cadre of District Judges, thereby doing away with the fine distinction between the two modes of promotion. The High Court further submits that it has been following the same methodology since 2011.
ON BEHALF OF THE PROMOTED CANDIDATES:
Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned Senior Counsel appeared for judicial officers who found place in the final Select List. He submitted that the writ petition under Article 32 ought not to be entertained as the petitioners have an alternative efficacious remedy of filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court. He argued that in All India Judges’ Association (3), the principle of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ and Suitability Test was provided only to objectively ascertain a minimum standard of merit for promotion to the Higher Judicial Services. The learned counsel argued that the principle of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ does not mean seniority has no relevance. The marks secured may be obtained without possessing important qualities like practical experience. Merely scoring a few marks more than other candidates is neither an indication of being more meritorious nor a reason to negate the length of service of senior candidates. If the petitioners’ interpretation is accepted, it would cause undue hardship and unjust treatment to some senior judges whose names were included in the final Select List, as they would lose precious years of seniority for obtaining a few marks lesser. Petitioners’ reliance on the promotion process of Jharkhand and Calcutta High Courts is misplaced as their rules are not pari-materia to the 2005 Rules. Finally, they concluded that the senor most judges included in this final list for promotion had scored higher marks in 2020 process but were not promoted due to being junior. The High Court has consistently followed the ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ process since 2011. Deviating will result in inequitable repercussions.
COURTS ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s argument that the petitioners should have approached the High Court under Article 226 instead of directly filing the writ petition under Article 32 before the Supreme Court and held that the availability of an alternative remedy does not affect the maintainability of a writ petition under Article 32. Whenever there is no conflict over the facts and the issue is how to interpret important rules that have wide-ranging consequences, the Supreme Court may decide to exercise its discretion and consider the writ petition under Article 32 even in cases where there is an alternative remedy. This is because the requirement that a party must first pursue the alternative remedy is a matter of convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law. The interpretation of Rule 5(1)(I) of the 2005 Rules and the ruling in the All-India Judges’ Association (3) are at issue here; the facts are not in dispute. Since the writ petition was filed under Article 32, the Supreme Court decided to consider it. The Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005’s Rule 5(1)(I) on “Merit-cum-Seniority” was upheld by the court in regards to the final Select List dated 10.03.2023 for the promotion of judicial officials in Gujarat. The court found no fault with the promotion process adopted by the High Court of Gujarat, which was consistent with the requirements for assessing legal knowledge and continued efficiency of judicial officers. The court also clarified that this judgment does not invalidate promotions granted by other High Courts based on their own rules and service requirements. As a result, the interim order was vacated, and the petition was dismissed with parties bearing their own costs.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – PRATYASA MISHRA
