Constitution Bench Directs Uniform 4‑Point Roster for Seniority in Higher Judicial Services
A five‑Judge Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K. Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi heard an interlocutory application (I.A. No. 230675/2025) in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1022 of 1989 concerning the principles for determining inter se seniority within the cadre of Higher Judicial Services (HJS) across States, particularly disputes between Regular Promotees (RPs), Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) selectees and Direct Recruits (DRs).
The Court held that on entry into the common HJS cadre incumbents lost any ‘birthmark’ of the source of recruitment and that seniority and further career advancement within the HJS must be governed by merit‑cum‑seniority in the common cadre, subject to an annual roster system. The Bench directed adoption of an annual 4‑point roster allocating two points to RPs, one to LDCE and one to DR in repeating sequence, clarified rules for delayed recruitments and vacancies, and declined proposals for separate quotas or fixed seniority weightage in favour of promotees. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: The Bench further cautioned that “perceived discontentment and heartburn without something more ... cannot result in creating an artificial classification of members within a cadre.”
Background The dispute arose from long‑running All India Judges Association (AIJA) proceedings that have, over decades, addressed recruitment, designation and service conditions of judicial officers. The present interlocutory application, filed by the learned Amicus Curiae (Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Senior Advocate), highlighted an “anomalous situation” where direct recruits often advanced faster, causing discontent among promotees. Parties advanced competing submissions: promotees and LDCE candidates urged recognition of prior judicial service and suggested quota or seniority weightage (including proposals such as a 1:1 quota, seniority credit for years served in lower rungs, or separate seniority lists), while DRs and several High Courts argued that the source of recruitment lost relevance on entry into a common cadre and that High Courts should retain primacy under Articles 233–235 in framing service rules.
The Bench traced the trajectory of successive AIJA judgments and related precedents, including Rejanish K.V., the series of AIJA decisions, Roshan Lal Tandon and Triloki Nath Khosa, and held that earlier service in the feeder cadre could not, without statutory backing and compelling reason, constitute an intelligible differentia to favour promotees. The Court declined to create fresh preferential quotas for elevation to the High Court and reiterated that fixation in Selection Grade and Super Time Scale must be governed by merit‑cum‑seniority within the HJS. To harmonise divergent roster practices across States, the Bench prescribed the 4‑point annual roster (2 RPs, 1 LDCE, 1 DR), allowed limited exceptions where recruitment concluded in the following year, addressed filling of unfilled DR/LDCE vacancies by RPs subject to roster positions, and directed States to amend statutory service rules in consultation with respective High Courts within three months. The Court also recorded the well‑known observation: “Judges do not have an easy job. They repeatedly do what the rest of us seek to avoid; make decisions.”
Case No.: Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1022 of 1989 (I.A. No. 230675/2025); Citation: 2025 INSC 1328 Case Title: All India Judges Association and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae) For the Respondent(s): Counsel for Union of India, various State Governments and Registrar Generals of High Courts (as represented; specific names not individually listed in the judgment)