A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, on Tuesday (October 28) began hearings on the long-pending issue of inter-se seniority and promotion in the Higher Judicial Service (HJS). The Bench is also considering whether a quota should be created for promotion to District Judge posts for officers who entered service at the lowest level, to address career stagnation in the subordinate judiciary.
The five-judge Bench — comprising CJI Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K Vinod Chandran, and Joymalya Bagchi — expressed concern over the potential fallout of the Court’s earlier ruling in Rejanish KV v K Deepa, which allowed judicial officers with seven years of service to sit for direct recruitment to the post of District Judge.
Justice Surya Kant noted that while the earlier ruling aimed to balance seniority, it could “unintentionally encourage junior officers to focus more on preparing for exams than on judicial work,” potentially causing a crisis in the lower judiciary.
Amicus Curiae Senior Advocate Siddharth Bhatnagar concurred, saying that the new system risks distorting incentives within the cadre. “Officers might prioritize exam preparation over case disposal and performance in ACRs,” he warned.
Concerns over disparity and stagnation
Bhatnagar highlighted the age gap between promotee officers and direct recruits, citing data from several states and the Justice Shetty Commission Report.
- In Andhra Pradesh, promotee District Judges average 48 years, compared to 39 for direct recruits.
- In Assam, the figures are 51 vs 38, and in Bihar, 54 vs 41.
Justice Chandran remarked, “In Bihar, it takes 17 years to become a District Judge for promotees.”
Suggestions before the Court
The amicus proposed two options:
- Quota at the super-time scale — not at entry level — giving promotees an advantage based on seniority and performance.
- A “zone of consideration” method, where half of shortlisted candidates for promotion are drawn from each stream — promotees and direct recruits.
However, Justice Joymalya Bagchi cautioned that this could “create a cadre within a cadre,” fragmenting what is meant to be a unified structure.
Other submissions
Senior Advocate Vibha Makhija, representing Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) candidates, opposed the amicus’ suggestion, arguing that it would dilute incentives for officers to improve skills or compete fairly.
Senior Advocate V Giri, for the Kerala High Court, sought guidelines on weightage for officers from remote postings when appointing Principal District Judges — a position not formally covered by service rules but critical in the judicial hierarchy.
Background to the reference
The matter reached the Constitution Bench after the Supreme Court noted the lack of promotional avenues for Civil Judges (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrates First Class (JMFC). Many such officers, despite decades of service, never reach the level of Principal District Judge, let alone the High Court.
Earlier, amicus Bhatnagar proposed reserving a portion of Principal District Judge posts for promotees, a suggestion opposed by Senior Advocate R Basant, who said it would unfairly restrict opportunities for meritorious direct recruits.
Referring the case to a larger bench, the Court said:
“A balance must be struck between competing claims… to provide a meaningful and long-lasting solution.”
The Bench will continue hearing submissions on Wednesday.