Candidates Must Be Evaluated Individually for Promotion, Not Just by Merit List Placement: Supreme Court

In a significant ruling that reinforces the principles of fairness in judicial service promotions, the Supreme Court of India held that candidates under the merit-cum-seniority quota must be evaluated individually for their suitability and cannot be denied promotion solely due to their placement on a merit list. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice B.V. Nagarathna in Civil Appeal No. 299 of 2025, arising from SLP (C) No. 17304 of 2022.

Case Background

The appellants, Dharmendra Kumar Singh and Others, were judicial officers in Jharkhand initially appointed as Civil Judges (Junior Division) and subsequently promoted to Civil Judges (Senior Division) in 2014 and 2016, respectively. They participated in the promotion process for District Judge under the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service (Recruitment, Appointment, and Condition of Service) Rules, 2001.

Play button

The High Court of Jharkhand, through a notification dated May 30, 2019, promoted several judicial officers to the post of District Judge. The appellants, despite securing the qualifying marks of 40 in the suitability test, were overlooked for promotion. Instead, junior officers with higher aggregate scores were promoted based on a merit list. Aggrieved, the appellants filed a writ petition before the Jharkhand High Court, which dismissed their plea. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court.

READ ALSO  Sec 11 Arbitration Act | Court Can Consider Whether the Dispute is Arbitrable or Not, Rules Supreme Court

Important Legal Issues

1. Merit-Cum-Seniority vs. Comparative Merit  

   Whether the promotion under the 65% quota for District Judge should prioritize individual suitability over comparative merit, as determined by placement in a merit list.

2. Compliance with Service Rules  

   Whether the High Court’s reliance on the merit list for promotions violated the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2001, which stipulate the evaluation of candidates based on merit-cum-seniority and suitability.

Observations of the Court

The Supreme Court, relying on its earlier judgment in Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta v. High Court of Gujarat (2024 SCC Online SC 972), made the following critical observations:

READ ALSO  Injury on Head is Enough to Invoke Section 302 IPC, Fracture Not Required, Rules Supreme Court- Know More

– Individual Suitability Takes Precedence  

“The suitability of each candidate should be tested on their own merit. Comparative merit cannot be the sole determinant for promotions under the 65% quota, as it would blur the lines between merit-cum-seniority and competitive examination.”

– Merit-Cum-Seniority is Distinct from Competitive Quota  

“Promotions under the 65% quota must be based on an assessment of the continued efficiency and adequacy of knowledge of case law, rather than a competitive ranking system.”

– Service Rules Must be Honoured  

“Deviating from the prescribed rules and substituting the suitability test with a merit list undermines the principle of merit-cum-seniority.”

Decision of the Court

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Jharkhand High Court. It ruled that the appellants, having successfully cleared the suitability test, were entitled to notional promotion from the same date as the candidates promoted under the notification dated May 30, 2019. The Court directed that the appellants receive all consequential benefits, including seniority and increments, but denied them back wages.

READ ALSO  Supreme Court Declines Plea on Lawyers' Mental Health, Suggests Bar Council Intervention

Case Details

– Case Title: Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Others v. High Court of Jharkhand & Others  

– Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 299 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17304 of 2022)  

– Bench: Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice B.V. Nagarathna  

– Appellants: Dharmendra Kumar Singh, along with two other judicial officers  

– Respondents: The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand and others  

– Advocates: Senior Advocate Neetu Sachdeva represented the appellants, while Advocate General P.R. Tiwari appeared for the respondents.  

Law Trend
Law Trendhttps://lawtrend.in/
Legal News Website Providing Latest Judgments of Supreme Court and High Court

Related Articles

Latest Articles