Supreme Court lays down guidelines on inter se seniority for officers appointed to Higher Judicial Services

The Supreme Court has laid down general and mandatory guidelines to be incorporated into the respective statutory service rules governing the determination of inter se seniority among officers appointed from different sources to the Higher Judicial Services.

A five -judge constitution bench has clarified that these directions shall not be construed as an avenue to reopen or unsettle inter se seniorities that have already been determined between officers appointed from the different sources of recruitment. 

The court considered an application seeking to revisit the principles governing the determination of seniority within the cadre of Higher Judicial Services (HJS) of all the States. The HJS, across the country, is comprised of officers recruited through three sources: (i) Regular Promotees (RP); (ii) those promoted through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations (LDCE); and (iii) Direct Recruits (DR). These three sources for recruitment and appointment to the position of District Judge were crystallised through various directions issued in the successive All India Judges Association (AIJA) proceedings. It is amongst these three sources that the dispute of inter se seniority had arisen.

Invoking powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, a CJI Gavai led bench has issued these directions

(i) That, perceived discontentment and heartburn without something more in the form of a legal claim, illegal denial, or at least a legitimate expectation cannot result in creating an artificial classification of members within a cadre.

(ii) That, the statistical data is disparate and does not provide a substantial basis to find such discontentment and heartburn of RPs in the HJS, to be justified.

(iii) That, there is no common malady of disproportionate representation of DRs in the HJS such that it is diminishing the prospects of financial upgradation or designation as Principal District Judges to the promotees, which afflict the Country as a whole or make it imperative for this Court to resolve it, by giving a preference to RPs or LDCEs.

(iv) That, the data put forth in many States indicates a prevalence or equivalence of RPs in the HJS and key positions, which is natural since their ratio is 3/4th of the total posts in the cadre.

(v) That, on the entry into a common cadre from different sources (RP, LDCE and DR) and assignment of seniority as per the annual roster, the incumbents lose their ‘birthmark’ of the source from which they are recruited.

(vi) That fixation in the Selection Grade and Super Time Scale within the HJS is based on the merit-cum-seniority within the cadre and cannot depend upon the length of service or performance in the lower rungs of the Judiciary; the latter loses its significance after RPs and LDCEs, by its virtue, are propelled into the HJS. Reliance on it does not serve the object of efficient administration of justice and is counterproductive.

(vii) That, the length and performance as a Civil Judge also does not constitute an intelligible differentia to classify incumbents in the common cadre of District Judge and the classification made in Triloki Nath Khosa by a Constitution Bench of this Court on the basis of educational qualifications stands on a different footing.

(viii) That, individual career aspirations are a normal incidence of service, accentuated only by better performance; they are not connected to the objective of an independent and strengthened judiciary and cannot guide the shape of the rules of seniority.

(ix) That, sufficient accelerated opportunities are provided for Members of the Judicial Service entering into the lower rungs, for career advancement as provided by the Constitution Bench in Rejanish K.V.; enabling the reckoning of their service for direct recruitment to HJS and by the Sixth AIJA8; facilitating fast-track promotions to Civil Judge (Senior Division) and the HJS through reduction in the minimum period of service.

(x) That, the seniority of officers within the HJS shall be determined through an annual 4-point roster, filled by all officers appointed in the particular year in the repeating sequence of 2 RPs, 1 LDCE, and 1 DR.

(xi) That, only if the recruitment process is completed within the year after which it was initiated and no other appointments, from any of the three sources, have already taken place in respect of the recruitment initiated for that subsequent year, shall the officers belatedly so appointed be entitled to seniority as per the roster of the year in which recruitment was initiated.

(xii) That, if the recruitment process is not initiated for vacancies arising in a given year in the same year, the candidate filling such vacancy, in subsequent recruitment, shall be granted seniority within the annual roster of the year in which the recruitment process is finally concluded and appointment is made.

(xiii) That, after the recruitment of DRs and LDCEs is complete for a particular year, the positions falling in their quota that remain unfilled due to lack of suitable candidates shall be filled through RPs, subject to such RPs being placed only on subsequent RP positions in the annual roster; and the vacancies in the subsequent year shall be computed so as to apply the proportion of 50:25:25 to the entire cadre.

(xiv) That, the statutory rules governing the HJS in the respective States, in consultation with the High Courts, shall prescribe the exact modalities of the Annual Roster and how the directions of this judgement shall be implemented. 

States / Union Territory Administrations have been directed to undertake appropriate amendments in their respective statutory rules, in consultation with the High Court, to bring them in consonance with the guidelines laid down in this judgment, within a period of three months.

On November 4, a five-judge Constitution bench had reserved its verdict on the issue concerning career stagnation faced by judicial officers across the country.

In October, a Chief Justice of India led bench of Supreme Court had referred the issue concerning career stagnation faced by judicial officers to a five-judge Constitution bench. The bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran had noted that a comprehensive solution is needed to address the limited promotional avenues available to those who join the judiciary at entry-level positions.

Case Title: ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND ORS. vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Bench: CJI Gavai with Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, Joymalya Bagchi and K Vinod Chandran

Judgment Date: November 19, 2025