Suitability over Merit: Supreme Court Upholds Seniority in Judicial Promotions


Court: Supreme Court of India.

Case Name: DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINGH vs. THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND.

Citation: 2025 INSC 72 (Reportable)

Background of the Case

The case involves an appeal against a judgment by the High Court of Jharkhand, which had upheld a notification dated 30.05.2019, promoting certain individuals to the post of District Judge in the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service.

The appellants, who were Civil Judges (Senior Division), challenged their non-promotion despite meeting the eligibility criteria, including a suitability test.

The Jharkhand Superior Judicial Services (Recruitment, Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules, 2001, govern the promotion process.

Key Provisions of the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Services Rules, 2001

The Rules provide for appointments to the post of Additional District Judge by three methods:

  • Direct recruitment (25% quota).
  • Promotion based on merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test (65% quota).
  • Promotion through a Limited Competitive Examination (10% quota).

For the merit-cum-seniority promotion (65% quota), a suitability test is required.

The suitability test includes:

  • Interview (20 marks).
  • Service Profile evaluation based on Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) of the past 10 years (60 marks).
  • Evaluation of Judgement (10 marks).
  • Marks for service as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) – 1 mark per year (maximum 10 marks).

A minimum of 40 marks in aggregate is required to be declared suitable.

The Dispute

The appellants had secured more than 40 marks in the suitability test, thus meeting the criteria for promotion.

However, the High Court promoted candidates junior to the appellants who scored higher marks in the aggregate i.e., using a merit list, and not merely for having met suitability thresholds.

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed the appellants' writ petition, arguing that candidates with higher total scores in the suitability test were rightfully promoted.

Supreme Court's Analysis

The Supreme Court relied heavily on the precedent set in Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta and Another vs. High Court of Gujarat and Others (2024 SCC Online SC 972).

The key principle is that suitability should be tested on its own merit and not comparatively against other candidates within the 65% merit-cum-seniority category.

Once a candidate meets the minimum suitability criteria (in this case, 40 marks), they cannot be overlooked for promotion based on a separate merit list within the 65% quota.

The Supreme Court underscored the need to differentiate between the 65% promotion category (merit-cum-seniority) and the 10% promotion category (limited competitive exam), which is strictly merit-based.

The Supreme Court clarified that the suitability test is not a competitive exam for the 65% quota, and those who qualify for it can't be denied promotion just because they are lower on a merit list.

Rationale, Reasoning Given by the Judges

The Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgment in Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta and Another vs. High Court of Gujarat and Others, stating that the suitability of each candidate should be tested on their own merit.

The judgment emphasized that the suitability test is a threshold test and not a competitive exam for the 65% promotion quota based on merit-cum-seniority.

The Supreme Court emphasized that accepting a comparative merit list for the 65% quota would obliterate the distinction between the two promotion categories.

The court noted that a comparative merit list would make the 65% promotion category similar to the 10% promotion category, which is strictly based on merit.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the purpose of the merit-cum-seniority promotion is not to find the most suitable candidate but to ensure that suitable candidates, with seniority, are given the promotion.

The court did not find any fault in the Gujarat HC process because it fulfilled two conditions:

  • The objective assessment of legal knowledge of the judicial officer, including knowledge of case law.
  • The evaluation of the continued efficiency of the individual candidates.

Supreme Court's Decision

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court of Jharkhand.

It ruled that since the appellants had qualified the suitability test (obtained 40+ marks), they could not be denied promotion solely due to their lower position in the merit list.

The appellants were granted a "notional promotion" from the same date as the other officers who were promoted based on the 30.05.2019 notification.

They were entitled to all consequential service benefits (seniority, increments, notional pay fixation) but not to back wages.

Excerpt

"The suitability of each candidate should be tested on their own merit... The aforesaid decision does not speak about comparative merit for the 65% promotional quota."

"...if the contention of the petitioners were to be accepted then it would completely obliterate the fine distinction between the two categories of promotion in the cadre of District & Sessions Judge by way of 65% promotion on the basis of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ and 10% promotion strictly on the basis of merit."

Points to Remember

  • The suitability test is a threshold test, not a competitive exam for promotions under the merit-cum-seniority quota.
  • Once a candidate has met the suitability test, they cannot be overlooked for promotion on the basis of a comparative merit list.
  • The judgment underscores the need to adhere to the specific rules governing promotion and to respect the distinction between different categories of promotion processes.
  • Suitability needs to be assessed on its own merit, and once someone qualifies they have a right to be promoted based on seniority.
  • The 65% quota for promotion based on merit-cum-seniority is distinct from the 10% quota which is based purely on merit through a limited competitive exam.
  • This ruling could have implications for similar promotion practices in other states where a similar formula for calculating eligibility has been adopted for promotion.

Popular posts from this blog

SARFAESI Act and Civil Court Jurisdiction: A Landmark Judgment

Court: Supreme Court of India Case Name: Central Bank Of India vs. Smt. Prabha Jain Citation: 2025 INSC 95  (Reportable) Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India addressed a series of civil appeals concerning the interplay between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the jurisdiction of civil courts. The central issue was whether civil courts can adjudicate on the validity of sale deeds and mortgage deeds when the properties are under SARFAESI Act proceedings. This was particularly in the context where a third party, not the borrower, claimed an independent ownership right over the secured asset. The lead case involved Smt. Prabha Jain, who sought to reclaim her share of family land, arguing that her brother-in-law illegally sold the land which was later mortgaged to the Central Bank of India. The bank argued that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 34 of the SARFAE...
Read more

Navigating Partnership Disputes in Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Minimal Judicial Intervention, Tasking Arbitral Tribunal to Determine Privity Amidst Partner Succession and a Substitute Presiding Arbitrator Appointment

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay recently addressed a contentious arbitration petition,  2025:BHC-AS:11467 , arising from a dispute concerning the exit of the Petitioner, Darshan Mahendra Nibjya, from a partnership firm where Respondent No. 2, Jayantilal Tarachand Oswal & Ors., subsequently became a partner.  The core legal question revolved around the maintainability of the arbitration against Respondent No. 2, who contended that no arbitration agreement existed between him and the Petitioner. This issue came before the Court in the context of an application for the appointment of a substitute presiding arbitrator, necessitated by the resignation of the previously appointed arbitrator following allegations from Respondent No. 2. The genesis of the matter lies in the inability of the arbitrators nominated by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 to agree on a presiding arbitrator, leading to the initial appointment by a Learned Single Judge, an order upheld by the Sup...
Read more

Trademark Victory for "STREAX": Court Protects Established Brand Against Infringement

A critical analysis of the trademark infringement case, Hygienic Research Institute Private Limited v. Chandan and Shah Trading LLP , 2025:BHC-OS:3609 , reveals key aspects of trademark law and judicial reasoning. The case revolved around the plaintiff's ("Hygienic Research Institute") registered trademark "STREAX" and the defendant's ("Chandan and Shah Trading LLP") use of the mark "STREAK Street". Key points of analysis : Trademark and Goodwill: The plaintiff asserted proprietary rights in its registered trademark "STREAX," emphasizing its extensive use since 2002 and 44 registrations for "STREAX" and its variants. Significant sales turnover, with ₹501 Crores in 2023-24, and advertising expenses of ₹50 Crores, demonstrated the brand's market presence. Infringement and Passing Off: The plaintiff contended that the defendant's mark, "STREAK Street," was deceptively similar to the registered tradem...
Read more