Supreme Court Declines Quota in District Judge Cadre; Issues Comprehensive Seniority Framework

(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)

Delhi, 19, November, 2025- In a significant ruling impacting the structure of the Higher Judicial Service (HJS), the Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to grant any special quota or weightage to promotee judicial officers for appointments to District Judge posts. A five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India B.R. Gavai, and comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K. Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi, delivered the verdict in the long-pending All India Judges Association matter, reserving its judgment earlier on November 4.

The Bench held that there is no nationwide pattern of disproportionate representation of direct recruits in the District Judge cadre that would justify a special preference for in-service officers. The Court emphasised that a mere “perceived feeling of heartburn” among judicial officers cannot be the basis for creating an artificial classification within the cadre based on the source of recruitment—whether Regular Promotion, Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), or Direct Recruitment.

Once appointed as District Judges through the annual roster, all incumbents lose the ‘birthmark’ of their recruitment source, the Court stated, underscoring that seniority must flow from the roster position and not from the mode of entry.

The Court also clarified that placement in the Selection Grade and Super Time Scale within HJS is determined strictly on a merit-cum-seniority basis. It cannot hinge on the total length of service or performance in the lower judiciary. “Advancement within the cadre depends on merit and not past tenure,” the Bench noted, rejecting arguments that in-service officers should receive additional weightage.

Addressing concerns of stagnation among promotee officers, the Court observed that adequate avenues for elevation already exist, especially after the ruling in Rajanish v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which opened the door for in-service judicial officers to compete for direct recruitment to District Judge posts. The Bench reiterated that individual aspirations and disappointments are “common incidents in any service” and cannot dictate cadre structure.

The judgment highlighted that fast-track promotions for Civil Judges (Senior Division) have already been facilitated by reducing the mandatory service requirement, which further enhances career mobility within the subordinate judiciary.

“A. 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.

B.  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.

C. 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 Page 57 of 59 I.A. Nos. 230675 of 2025 in W.P. (C) No.1022 of 1989 within the annual roster of the year in which the recruitment process is finally concluded and appointment is made.

D. 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.

E. 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.”

Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court also issued a set of mandatory guidelines for filling vacancies in the District Judge cadre and for determining inter-se seniority. These guidelines, the Court clarified, are not meant to resolve existing disputes but must be incorporated into all future regulations governing seniority in Higher Judicial Services across states. Importantly, they will not reopen any previously settled seniority issues.

The decision settles the long-debated question before the Court: whether judicial officers who enter the service at the lowest rung should be given a separate quota for promotion to District Judge posts. With Monday’s ruling, the Supreme Court has made it clear that seniority and progression within the HJS must remain uniform, merit-based, and free from source-based distinctions.