The Supreme Court reaffirmed that promotions under the merit-cum-seniority quota for district judges are not meant to be a competitive race, emphasizing the primacy of seniority once eligibility is met. This decision provides relief to judicial officers from Jharkhand who were denied promotions despite clearing the suitability test.
The bench clarified that the merit-cum-seniority process evaluates candidates individually and does not permit comparative merit to override the principle of seniority. Officers scoring the minimum required marks in the suitability test should not be excluded based on the performance of others.
In this case, the appellants—judicial officers who met the 40-mark passing threshold—had been bypassed in favor of juniors with higher scores. The Supreme Court overturned the earlier ruling by the Jharkhand High Court, which had dismissed their plea based on a merit-based list prepared by the High Court of Jharkhand.
The appellants relied on a precedent set in Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Mehta v. High Court of Gujarat, where the Court ruled that once a candidate qualifies the suitability test, further comparison of marks is impermissible. The Supreme Court reiterated that the merit-cum-seniority quota is not a competitive exam but a suitability assessment, followed by seniority-based promotions.
The judgment noted, “As the appellants have successfully qualified the suitability test, they could not have been deprived of their legitimate right of promotion only on account of lower placement in the merit list.”
The Court directed that the appellants be granted notional promotion from the date their peers were promoted, ensuring seniority and other service benefits like increments and notional pay fixation. However, the appellants will not receive back wages.
This ruling underscores the Supreme Court’s commitment to maintaining the integrity of seniority-based promotions, offering clarity on the merit-cum-seniority process for judicial appointments.
