Citation: Supreme Court of India, decided on 12th May 2023
Bench: Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice M.R. Shah
Parties:
- Petitioner: Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Mehta & Anr.
- Respondents: High Court of Gujarat & Ors.
Facts of the Case
This case addresses a challenge to the promotion process for the post of District Judge in the Gujarat judiciary. The petitioners, Senior Civil Judges, contested the High Court of Gujarat’s selection list (dated 10.03.2023) for promotions based on alleged non-compliance with the “merit-cum-seniority” rule mandated by the Supreme Court in the All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India (2002). The Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005, later amended in 2011, specify that 65% of District Judge posts should be filled by Senior Civil Judges promoted on a “merit-cum-seniority” basis after passing a suitability test.
Promotion Process
The High Court issued a recruitment notice on 12.04.2022, identifying 205 Senior Civil Judges as eligible for promotion. However, the method it used involved achieving a merit benchmark first and then promoting candidates based on seniority, leading to questions about compliance with the “merit-cum-seniority” principle.
Issues
- Does the High Court’s promotion method violate the “merit-cum-seniority” principle prescribed by the Supreme Court and the Gujarat Judicial Service Rules?
- Is the High Court’s approach, which applies seniority after a merit benchmark, contrary to the intended “merit-cum-seniority” rule?
- Can the promotion process be based on “seniority-cum-merit” instead of “merit-cum-seniority”?
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the High Court of Gujarat’s method of promoting Senior Civil Judges to District Judges was invalid as it deviated from the “merit-cum-seniority” principle. The Court declared the select list dated 10.03.2023 null and void.
Rationale
- Interpretation of Rules: The Court emphasized that promotions should be based on a merit list, with eligible candidates selected primarily based on merit, in line with the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005.
- Deviation from Merit-Cum-Seniority: By setting a merit benchmark and then promoting based on seniority alone, the High Court effectively shifted the criterion to “seniority-cum-merit,” contrary to the required “merit-cum-seniority” principle. This adjustment altered the intended priority of merit over seniority.
- Legal Precedents: The Court referred to All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India (2002) and State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976), emphasizing that “merit-cum-seniority” requires merit to be the primary consideration, with seniority secondary only for those meeting the merit criteria.
Arguments
- Petitioners’ Arguments:
- The petitioners argued that the High Court’s method was illegal, favoring seniority over merit and thus violating the mandated “merit-cum-seniority” principle.
- They contended that adherence to the correct method would have ensured their promotion based on merit scores.
- Respondents’ Arguments:
- The High Court and promoted candidates defended the method as compliant with “merit-cum-seniority,” ensuring that only those meeting the minimum merit threshold were considered for promotion by seniority.
- They argued that this method balanced judicial precedence with established practices in other High Courts since 2011.
Judgment
The Supreme Court held that the promotions under the select list of 10.03.2023 violated Article 14 of the Constitution and Rule 5 of the Gujarat Judicial Service Rules, 2005. It ordered that future promotions must adhere strictly to the principle of “merit-cum-seniority” as established by the rules and judicial directives.
Dicta
- Promotion Criteria: The Court reinforced that “merit-cum-seniority” means merit is the primary criterion, with seniority considered only among those meeting the merit threshold.
- Judicial Integrity: Adherence to established rules and principles is essential to maintain integrity and fairness in judicial promotions.
- Rectifying Long-Standing Practices: The Court noted that long-standing practices, even if widely followed, cannot override legal mandates if they are in conflict with the law.
Conclusion
The ruling in Ravikumar Maheta & Ors. v. High Court of Gujarat & Ors. reinforces the importance of strict adherence to the “merit-cum-seniority” principle for judicial promotions, emphasizing fairness and compliance with legal standards in judicial service rules. This decision underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring that promotions prioritize merit as mandated, upholding justice and integrity in the selection process.
