Supreme Court Directs Notional Promotion And Seniority Fixation For Judicial Officers Who Qualified Suitability Test

A bench of Justices B. V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma heard an appeal arising out of the High Court of Jharkhand’s judgment dated 29.06.2022 in Writ Petition (C) No. 3771/2019, which had declined to quash notification dated 30.05.2019 appointing certain candidates to the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service. The challenge concerned denial of promotion and seniority to three judicial officers who had qualified the suitability test but were placed lower on the merit list and were not initially promoted.

The Court allowed the civil appeal, set aside the High Court order and held that appellants who had successfully qualified the suitability test were entitled to notional promotion from the same date on which other officers from the select list were appointed under the notification dated 30.05.2019. The Court directed that the appellants “shall be entitled for notional promotion from the date other officers have been promoted to the post of District Judge in terms of notification dated 30.05.2019” and granted all consequential service benefits, including seniority, increments and notional pay fixation, while clarifying that they were not entitled to back wages. The Court relied on the legal principle that suitability must be determined on individual merit and that qualifying a suitability test could not be made futile by subsequent comparative placement. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “141. We summarise our final conclusion as under:— (A) What has been conveyed, in so many words, by this Court in All India Judges' Association (3) (supra) is that 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. In other words, what is stipulated is the determination of suitability of the candidates and assessment of their continued efficiency with adequate knowledge of case law.”

Background: The appellants were initially appointed as Munsif/Civil Judge (Junior Division) and were subsequently promoted to Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 23.07.2014 and 20.04.2016 respectively. The High Court of Jharkhand issued a notification dated 19.05.2018 for appointment to the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service. The Jharkhand Superior Judicial Services (Recruitment, Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules, 2001 (Rules 4 and 5) provided for appointment by direct recruitment (25%), promotion on merit-cum-seniority with a suitability test (65%), and limited competitive examination (10%). The suitability test comprised interview (20 marks), service profile/ACRs (60 marks), evaluation of judgments (10 marks) and seniority marks (up to 10 marks), with a minimum aggregate of 40 marks required for suitability.

The appellants obtained more than the minimum 40 marks (appellant No.1 — 50 marks; appellant No.2 — 50 marks; appellant No.3 — 43 marks) but were not promoted because other officers, junior to them in gradation but higher on the merit list, secured greater marks and were appointed. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the last selected candidate had obtained 51 marks. Counsel for the appellants relied on the Three-Judge Bench decision in Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta v. High Court of Gujarat, which held that for the 65% promotional quota the suitability of each candidate must be tested on his own merit and that once a candidate qualified the suitability test, he could not be ignored for promotion merely because of comparative positioning on a merit list. The Supreme Court found that, in light of that authority, appellants who were found suitable could not be deprived of promotion only due to lower placement in the merit list. The Court noted that the appellants had subsequently been promoted, and the dispute pertained to seniority; it directed that they be given notional promotion with consequential benefits from the date on which other selected officers were promoted, but denied any claim to back wages.

Case Details: Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 299 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17304 of 2022)
Case Title: Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Ors. v. The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the judgment]
For the Respondent(s): [Not indicated in the judgment]