Supreme Court Clarifies Promotion Criteria for District Judges in Jharkhand by Abhishek Jat

Supreme Court Clarifies Promotion Criteria for District Judges in Jharkhand

The Supreme Court of India recently adjudicated on the case of Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Ors. v. The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand & Ors., providing critical insights into judicial promotions. The ruling, reported as 2025 INSC 72, addresses the methodology for promotions under the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2001, particularly for the 65% merit-cum-seniority quota.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose when Civil Judges (Senior Division) challenged the High Court of Jharkhand’s decision to promote individuals junior to them despite meeting the eligibility criteria. The crux of the appeal was that the High Court relied on a comparative merit list rather than treating the suitability test as a threshold criterion for promotion.

Under the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Services (Recruitment, Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules, 2001, appointments to the post of District Judge occur through three channels:

1. Direct Recruitment (25%) – Candidates are selected from the Bar through a competitive examination.
2. Merit-cum-Seniority (65%) – Civil Judges (Senior Division) must pass a suitability test.
3. Limited Competitive Examination (10%) – Judges with at least five years of service may qualify through an internal examination.

The suitability test for the 65% category includes:

• Interview (20 marks)
• Service Profile evaluation (60 marks)
• Judgment evaluation (10 marks)
• Experience-based marks (1 per year, up to 10 marks)

Candidates scoring at least 40 marks qualify as suitable for promotion.

Core Legal Dispute

The appellants, having secured more than 40 marks, argued that the High Court's decision to promote candidates based on a merit ranking rather than suitability assessment violated the governing rules. The High Court dismissed their writ petition, contending that higher-scoring candidates deserved promotion, even within the merit-cum-seniority category.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, referring to its earlier judgment in Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta v. High Court of Gujarat & Ors. (2024 SCC Online SC 972), reaffirmed that the suitability test is a qualifying criterion, not a competitive examination. It ruled that once a candidate clears the suitability threshold, they cannot be overlooked in favor of higher scorers within the same category.

Key observations included:

• The suitability test is distinct from a competitive merit test; thus, it should not be used to create a rank-based selection list within the 65% quota.
• Merging the 65% merit-cum-seniority quota with the 10% limited competitive examination quota would dilute the differentiation between them.
• The purpose of the merit-cum-seniority promotion is to ensure that suitable and senior officers are promoted rather than to rank officers by merit.

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Jharkhand High Court’s decision. It ruled that the appellants should receive notional promotion from the date their juniors were promoted under the 2019 notification. While they would receive all consequential service benefits, including seniority and pay increments, they would not be entitled to back wages.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling reinforces the principle that judicial promotions based on merit-cum-seniority should not be determined solely on competitive ranking. Courts and administrative bodies across India may now need to ensure that their promotion policies respect the distinct categories of eligibility and selection, preventing unfair denials of advancement.

This decision provides clarity on judicial promotions and safeguards seniority rights while upholding merit considerations within the defined framework.