A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has authoritatively settled the recurring controversy regarding the determination of seniority within the Higher Judicial Services (HJS) across India.
In a significant judgment delivered on November 19, 2025, the Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Surya Kant, Justice Vikram Nath, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that seniority in the HJS must be determined based on a continuous length of service in accordance with an annual roster, and officers lose the “birthmark” of their recruitment source upon entry into the cadre.
The Court disposed of the Interlocutory Application (I.A. No. 230675 of 2025) in the long-standing All India Judges Association case, issuing mandatory guidelines for all States and High Courts.
The Legal Issue and Outcome
The primary question before the Constitution Bench was: “What should be the criteria for determining seniority in the cadre of Higher Judicial Services?”
The dispute involved the inter se seniority among three sources of recruitment to the HJS:
- Regular Promotees (RP)
- Limited Departmental Competitive Examinations (LDCE)
- Direct Recruits (DR)
The Court rejected the plea to reckon previous service in the lower judiciary (Junior and Senior Division) for determining seniority in the HJS. It mandated a uniform 4-point roster system (2 RPs, 1 LDCE, 1 DR) and directed States to amend their service rules within three months to align with these guidelines.
Background of the Case
The instant application was moved by the learned Amicus Curiae, Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, highlighting an “anomalous situation” where judicial officers recruited as Civil Judges often failed to reach the level of Principal District Judge or High Court Judge, causing dissuasion among young lawyers from joining the service.
Observing that a “proper balance has to be struck between the competing claims,” a three-judge bench had referred the matter to the Constitution Bench on October 7, 2025, to resolve the controversy “once and for all.”
Arguments of the Parties
The Amicus Curiae proposed four measures to address the perceived imbalance, including a 1:1 quota for Selection Grade, giving weightage to previous service (one year seniority for every five years of service), or creating separate seniority lists.
Regular Promotees (RPs) argued that Direct Recruits enjoy an age advantage, allowing them to reach administrative posts and the High Court faster. They contended that experience in judicial service is “superior” to experience at the Bar, citing the recent decision in Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa (2025). They argued that the induction of younger DRs causes “heartburn” among officers who have “toiled endlessly” in the lower courts.
LDCE Candidates supported the reckoning of earlier service and argued that unfilled LDCE vacancies should be carried forward rather than filled by RPs.
Direct Recruits (DRs) countered that upon entry into the HJS, the source of recruitment becomes inconsequential. They argued that “birthmarks” of the source are irrelevant for further career advancement and that High Courts are better equipped to regulate seniority based on State-specific statistics.
Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court conducted a detailed analysis of the history of the All India Judges Association (AIJA) proceedings and the constitutional powers of the High Courts versus the Supreme Court’s role in ensuring uniformity.
On “Heartburn” and Previous Service: The Court firmly rejected the “heartburn” argument. It clarified that while Rejanish K.V. equated judicial service with Bar experience, it did not confer supremacy on one over the other. The Court observed:
“It is well settled that career progression to the higher echelons of the judiciary is neither a matter of right nor of entitlement.”
The Bench noted that “ambition is a ladder, the last rung of which is always elusive,” and seniority cannot be fixed based on individual aspirations. The Court held that reliance on performance in the lower rungs of the judiciary “loses its significance after RPs and LDCEs… are propelled into the HJS.”
On the Doctrine of “Birthmark”: Citing the Constitution Bench decisions in Roshan Lal Tandon v. Union of India (1968) and State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Triloki Nath Khosa (1974), the Court held that once officers from different sources (RP, LDCE, DR) are appointed to a common cadre, they lose the “birthmark” of their source.
“The theory of classification, as proposed by the Amicus, subverts and submerges the precious guarantee of equality… On appointment and determination of their inter se seniority… [officers] lose the ‘birthmark’ of the source from which they are appointed.”
On the Roster System: The Court observed that while the Fourth AIJA case (2002) stipulated a 40-point roster, its implementation varied across States, causing a lack of uniformity. To harmonize this, the Court prescribed a 4-point roster system:
- 1st and 2nd points: Regular Promotees (RP)
- 3rd point: LDCE
- 4th point: Direct Recruit (DR)
This roster is to be applied annually.
Addressing Delays in Recruitment: Addressing the issue of recruitment delays, the Court ruled that if a recruitment process initiated in a specific year spills over into the next, the appointees will still be placed in the roster of the year the process was initiated, provided no appointments for the subsequent year’s recruitment have been made.
The Decision and Directions
The Court issued 14 specific conclusions and directions under Article 142 of the Constitution. Key directions include:
- No Artificial Classification: Perceived discontentment or “heartburn” cannot be a ground for creating artificial classifications within a cadre.
- Rejection of Weightage for Past Service: The length and performance as a Civil Judge do not constitute an intelligible differentia to classify incumbents in the HJS.
- Seniority by Roster: Seniority within the HJS shall be determined through an annual 4-point roster in the sequence: 2 RPs, 1 LDCE, and 1 DR.
- Recruitment Delays: If recruitment is not completed in the initiation year, but appointments are made before the next recruitment cycle appointments, officers are entitled to seniority as per the roster of the initiation year.
- Unfilled Vacancies: If vacancies in the DR or LDCE quota remain unfilled due to a lack of suitable candidates, they shall be filled by Regular Promotees (RPs). However, these RPs will occupy the subsequent RP positions in the roster, not the slots meant for DR/LDCE. The ratio of 50:25:25 will then be applied to the entire cadre for computing vacancies in the subsequent year.
- Implementation: State/Union Territory Administrations must amend their statutory rules in consultation with their respective High Courts within three months.
The Court concluded by quoting the First AIJA judgment: “Judges do not have an easy job. They repeatedly do what the rest of us seek to avoid; make decisions.”
Case Title: All India Judges Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. Citation: 2025 INSC 1328 Date of Judgment: November 19, 2025
