Expressing concern over the slow and uneven career progression of entry-level judicial officers across India, the Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday began the hearing on framing uniform, nationwide criteria for determining seniority in the Higher Judicial Service (HJS) cadre. A five-judge Constitution bench headed by the Chief Justice.
BR Gavai took note of the situation that “in most of the states, judicial officers recruited as Civil Judge (CJ) often do not reach the level of Principal District Judge (PDJ), leave aside reaching the position of a High Court Judge. This has resulted in many bright young lawyers being dissuaded from joining the service at the level of CJ”.
On October 14, the bench, also comprising justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, K Vinod Chandran and Joymalya Bagchi, framed the question which reads: “What should be the criteria for determining seniority in the cadre of Higher Judicial Services”. The bench also clarified that while hearing the main issue, it can also consider “other ancillary or related issues”. The bench is also examining whether a separate quota of District Judge (DJ) posts should be earmarked for officers who entered the judicial service at the lowest rung as Civil Judges (Junior Division), in order to ensure fairer career advancement opportunities.
Senior advocate Sidharth Bhatnagar, who is assisting the bench as an amicus curia, advanced the submissions and highlighted that promotions across most states were “driven more by seniority than by merit”, owing largely to the way Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) are evaluated.
“Almost everyone has ACRs marked as ‘Good’ or ‘Very Good,’ which means seniority becomes the de facto determining factor,” he said.
He said that the existing “roster points” system disproportionately disadvantages promotee judges, many of whom have over two decades of judicial experience but are unable to enter the zone of consideration for elevation as Principal District Judges or High Court Judges.