REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 

I.A. NO. 89454 OF 2021 

IN

WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 1022 OF 1989

ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION

AND OTHERS          ...PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)

AND

IN THE MATTER OF 

MS. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN

AND ANOTHER      …APPLICANT(S)

WITH

I.A. NO. 89450 OF 2021 

I.A. NO. 88976 OF 2021

I.A. No. 249 of 2009

I.A. NO. 44132 OF 2022 IN I.A. NO. 89450 OF 2021

IN

WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 1022 OF 1989

O R D E R

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1.I.A. No. 89454 of 2021 has been filed by two judicial

officers in the cadre of Delhi Judicial Service (hereinafter

1

referred to as “DJS”) namely Ms. Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan

and   Dr.   Shirish   Aggarwal,   for   modification   of   the   orders

dated 21

st

 March 2002

1

 and 20

th

 April 2010

2

 passed by this

Court in the present writ petition.   I.A. No. 89450 of 2021

has   been   filed   by   the   same   judicial   officers   seeking

permission   to   participate   in   the   Limited   Departmental

Competitive Examination (hereinafter referred to as “LDCE”)

initiated by the High Court of Delhi through its letter No. 38­

49/Exam.Cell/DHJSCL Exam/2021 dated 15

th

  July 2021,

for   promotion   to   the   Delhi   Higher   Judicial   Service

(hereinafter referred to as “DHJS”) District Judge Cadre and

to consider the candidature of the judicial officers­applicants

on   merits,   subject   to   the   outcome   of   the   application   for

modification.   I.A. No. 44132 of 2022 in I.A. No.89450 of

2021 has been filed by the same judicial officers praying for a

direction to the High Court of Delhi to identify two seats of

LDCE quota of DHJS from the roster under Rule 7(2) of the

Delhi   Higher   Judicial   Service   Rules,   1970   (hereinafter

referred to as the “said Rules”) and to reserve them for the

judicial officers­applicants.  I.A. No.88976 of 2021 has also

1 (2002) 4 SCC 247

2 (2010) 15 SCC 170

2

been   filed   by   the  same   judicial  officers  praying  for   their

impleadment as co­petitioners in the present writ petition.  

2.I.A. No.249 of 2009 has been filed by the High Court of

Delhi praying for reducing the minimum qualifying service to

7 years from 10 years for promotion to the DHJS under 25%

quota of LDCE.

3.We   have   heard   Shri   P.S.   Patwalia,   learned   Senior

Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   judicial   officers­

applicants,   Shri   A.D.N.   Rao,   learned   Senior   Counsel

appearing on behalf of the High Court of Delhi and Shri

Siddharth Bhatnagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing as

amicus curiae.

4.The   present   writ   petition   pertains   to   the   working

conditions   of   the   members   of   subordinate   judiciary

throughout   the   country.     This   Court   has   issued   various

directions from time to time.   Pursuant to the directions

issued by this Court, the then Ministry of Law, Justice and

Company   Affairs   (Department   of   Justice),   Government   of

India constituted the First National Judicial Pay Commission

(also   known   as   “Shetty   Commission”)   under   the

3

Chairmanship   of   Mr.   Justice   K.J.   Shetty   vide   Resolution

dated 21

st

 March 1996.  The Shetty Commission, after due

deliberation, submitted its report on 11

th

  November 1991.

The recommendations of the Shetty Commission came to be

considered by this Court in its order dated 21

st

 March 2002,

passed in the present writ petition.  It will be apposite to refer

to the observations made by this Court in paragraph (27) of

the said order, which read thus:

“27. Another question which falls for consideration

is the method of recruitment to the posts in the

cadre of Higher Judicial Service i.e. District Judges

and   Additional   District   Judges.   At   the   present

moment, there are two sources for recruitment to

the Higher Judicial Service, namely, by promotion

from   amongst   the   members   of   the   Subordinate

Judicial   Service   and   by   direct   recruitment.   The

subordinate judiciary is the foundation of the edifice

of the judicial system. It is, therefore, imperative,

like any other foundation, that it should become as

strong   as   possible.   The   weight   on   the   judicial

system   essentially   rests   on   the   subordinate

judiciary.   While   we   have   accepted   the

recommendation of the Shetty Commission which

will result in the increase in the pay scales of the

subordinate   judiciary,   it   is   at   the   same   time

necessary that the judicial officers, hard­working as

they are, become more efficient. It is imperative that

they keep abreast of knowledge of law and the latest

pronouncements, and it is for this reason that the

Shetty   Commission   has   recommended   the

establishment of a Judicial Academy, which is very

necessary. At the same time, we are of the opinion

that there has to be certain minimum standard,

4

objectively adjudged, for officers who are to enter

the Higher Judicial Service as Additional District

Judges and District Judges. While we agree with the

Shetty   Commission   that   the   recruitment   to   the

Higher Judicial Service i.e. the District Judge cadre

from amongst the advocates should be 25 per cent

and   the   process   of   recruitment   is   to   be   by   a

competitive   examination,   both   written   and   viva

voce, we are of the opinion that there should be an

objective  method  of   testing  the   suitability  of   the

subordinate judicial officers for promotion to the

Higher Judicial Service. Furthermore, there should

also be an incentive amongst the relatively junior

and other officers to improve and to compete with

each other so as to excel and get quicker promotion.

In   this   way,   we   expect   that   the   calibre   of   the

members of the Higher Judicial Service will further

improve. In order to achieve this, while the ratio of

75 per cent appointment by promotion and 25 per

cent by direct recruitment to the Higher Judicial

Service   is   maintained,   we   are,   however,   of   the

opinion that there should be two methods as far as

appointment by promotion is concerned : 50 per

cent of the total posts in the Higher Judicial Service

must be filled by promotion on the basis of principle

of merit­cum­seniority. For this purpose, the High

Courts should devise and evolve a test in order to

ascertain and examine the legal knowledge of those

candidates and to assess their continued efficiency

with   adequate   knowledge   of   case­law.   The

remaining 25 per cent of the posts in the service

shall be filled by promotion strictly on the basis of

merit through the limited departmental competitive

examination for which the qualifying service as a

Civil Judge (Senior Division) should be not less than

five years. The High Courts will have to frame a rule

in this regard.”

5

5.A   perusal   thereof   would   reveal   that   this   Court   has

observed that there should also be an incentive amongst the

relatively junior and other officers to improve and to compete

with each other so as to excel and get quicker promotion.

This Court was of the view that in this way, the calibre of the

members of the Higher Judicial Service will further improve.

This Court, therefore, observed that to achieve the same,

while the ratio of 75% appointment by promotion and 25% by

direct   recruitment   to   the   Higher   Judicial   Service   is

maintained, there should be two methods for appointment by

promotion.   50% of the total posts in the Higher Judicial

Service must be filled by promotion on the basis of principle

of merit­cum­seniority and the remaining 25% of posts in the

service should be filled by promotion strictly on the basis of

merit through LDCE for which the qualifying service as a

Civil Judge (Senior Division) should be not less than 5 years.

This Court, accordingly, issued the following directions:

“28. As a result of the aforesaid, to recapitulate, we

direct   that   recruitment   to   the   Higher   Judicial

Service i.e. the cadre of District Judges will be:

(1)(a)   50   per   cent   by   promotion   from

amongst   the   Civil   Judges   (Senior

Division)   on   the   basis   of   principle   of

6

merit­cum­seniority   and   passing   a

suitability test;

(b) 25 per cent by promotion strictly on

the   basis   of   merit   through   limited

competitive examination of Civil Judges

(Senior Division) having not less than five

years' qualifying service; and

(c) 25 per cent of the posts shall be filled

by direct recruitment from amongst the

eligible   advocates   on   the   basis   of   the

written and viva voce test conducted by

respective High Courts.

(2) Appropriate rules shall be framed as

above   by   the   High   Courts   as   early   as

possible.”

6.In pursuance of the directions of this Court, the High

Court of Delhi amended Rule 7 of the said Rules vide Delhi

Higher Judicial Service (Amendment) Rules, 2008 dated 22

nd

October 2008, which reads thus:

“7.   Regular   recruitment.­   (1)   Recruitment   to   the

posts in the cadre of District Judge at Entry Level

shall be as under:­ 

(a) 50 percent by promotion from amongst the Civil

Judges  (Senior  Division),   having   a  minimum  ten

years service in the cadre of Delhi Judicial Service,

on the basis of principle of merit­cum­seniority and

passing a suitability test; 

(b) 25 percent by promotion strictly on the basis of

merit  through limited  competitive  examination of

Civil Judges (Senior Division) having not less than

five years qualifying service; and 

(c) 25 percent of the posts shall be filled by direct

recruitment from amongst the persons eligible as

7

per rule 7C on the basis of the written and viva voce

test, conducted by the High Court. 

(2) The first and second posts will go to category (a)

(by   promotion   on   the   basis   of   seniority­cum­

suitability), the third post will go to category (c)

(direct recruitment from the Bar), and the fourth

post will go to category (b) (by limited competitive

examination) under this rule, and so on. 

7A.   ……

7B.   Selection   for   promotion   by   holding   limited

competitive examination:­ The High Court shall hold

a   limited   written   competitive   examination   for

promotion of member of the Delhi Judicial Service

as per clause (b) of sub­rule (1) of rule 7 in the

following manner:­ 

(i)Written Examination ­ 600 marks 

(ii)Assessment of Record ­150 marks 

(iii)Viva voce ­ 250 marks 

Provided that the High Court may, in addition to the

above   competitive   examination,   take   into

consideration any of the materials as prescribed in

rule 7A above. 

Provided further that any officer having grading as

'C'   (Integrity   doubtful)   in  any   year,   shall   not   be

eligible   to   appear   in   the   limited   competitive

examination.

7C. ……..”

7.In the meantime, the issue with regard to eligibility

requirement for recruitment to the posts in DHJS under 25%

quota by promotion on the basis of merit through LDCE

8

came up for discussion before the Full Court of the High

Court of Delhi in its meeting dated 5

th

 September 2008.  In

the said meeting, it was considered that a Civil Judge (Junior

Division)   is   not   eligible   to   become   Civil   Judge   (Senior

Division) until he completes 5 years qualifying service.  It was

further discussed that under the said Rules, a Civil Judge

(Junior Division) would be required to have a minimum of 10

years qualifying service to be considered even for the 25%

quota through LDCE.  The Full Court of the High Court of

Delhi was of the view that in order to make the quota of

LDCE   an   effective   scheme   of   promotion   for   meritorious

officers, it was appropriate that the eligibility requirement of

10 years be reduced to 7 years [(5 years as Civil Judge

(Junior Division) and 2 years as Civil Judge (Senior Division)

under the 25% quota].  The High Court of Delhi was of the

view that the same would also be in conformity with Article

233   (2)   of   the   Constitution   of   India   and   the   eligibility

conditions   for   direct   recruitment   from   the   Bar.     In   this

background, I.A. No. 249 of 2009 came to be filed by the

High Court of Delhi.

9

8.Various I.As. were filed in the present writ petition.

Some of the I.As. came to be decided by this Court vide order

dated 20

th

  April 2010.   It will be apposite to refer to the

following paragraphs of the said order:

“5. In   some   of   the   States   sufficient   number   of

candidates   are   not   available   for   being   promoted

under   this   particular   category   as   a   Civil   Judge

(Senior   Division)   in   the   normal   course   gets

promotion   before   the   completion   of   period   of   5

years. As 25% quota is prescribed, a large number

of vacancies remained unfilled and that is not good

for the judicial administration in that State.

6. Having regard to various strategies available, we

are of the considered view that suitable amendment

is   to   be   made   for   this   25%   quota   of   limited

departmental competitive examination. We are also

of  the  view,  with the  past  experience, that  it  is

desirable that 25% quota be reduced to 10%. We

feel so as the required result, which was sought to

be achieved by this process could not be achieved,

thus it calls for modification.

7. Thus, we direct that henceforth only 10% of the

cadre strength of District Judges be filled up by

limited departmental competitive examination with

those candidates who have qualified service of five

years as Civil Judge (Senior Division). Every year

vacancies are to be ascertained and the process of

selection shall be taken care of by the High Courts.

If any of the post is not filled up under 10% quota,

the same shall be filled up by regular promotion. In

some of the High Courts, process of selection of

these 25% quota by holding limited departmental

competitive   examination   is   in   progress,   such

10

process can be continued and the unfilled seats, if

meritorious   candidates   are   available,   should   be

filled up. But if for some reason the seats are not

filled up, they may be filled up by regular promotion

and apply the usual mode of promotion process.

Thus we pass the following order.

8. Hereinafter, there shall be 25% of seats for direct

recruitment from the Bar, 65% of seats are to be

filled up by regular promotion of Civil Judge (Senior

Division)   and   10%   seats   are   to   be   filled   up   by

limited   departmental   competitive   examination.   If

candidates are not available for 10% seats, or are

not able to qualify in the examination then vacant

posts are to be filled up by regular promotion in

accordance with the Service Rules applicable.

9. All the High Courts are hereby directed to take

steps to see that existing Service Rules be amended

positively with effect from 1­1­2011. If the Rules are

not suitably amended, this order shall prevail and

further   recruitment   from   1­1­2011   shall   be

continued accordingly as directed by us. The time

schedule prescribed in the order dated 4­1­2007

(in Malik Mazhar Sultan case [Malik Mazhar Sultan

(3) v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2008) 17 SCC

703 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 942] ) shall be strictly

adhered   to   for   the   purpose   of   selection.   All   the

vacancies are to be filled up in that particular year

and there shall not be any carry forward of the

unfilled posts.”

9.It could thus be seen that this Court found that it was

difficult   to   find   candidates   for   LDCE   for   the   25%   posts

reserved for the said category and in many High Courts, the

11

said posts remained unfilled.  This Court, therefore, reduced

the said 25% quota to 10%.

10.I.A. No. 249 of 2009 filed by the High Court of Delhi has

been pending for more than a decade.  In the meantime, two

judicial   officers­applicants   herein   have   filed   the   aforesaid

I.As.  The first one being for modification of the orders of this

Court dated 21

st

 March 2002 and 20

th

 April 2010.

11.It is not in dispute that in the High Court of Delhi, the

nature of work to be performed by the Civil Judge (Junior

Division) and Civil Judge (Senior Division) is the same.  This

is a peculiar situation prevailing in the High Court of Delhi

where except for the difference in Pay Scale, there is no

difference with regard to the powers to be exercised and the

duties to be discharged by the said judges.  It is also not in

dispute that the present ratio of Civil Judge (Junior Division)

to Civil Judge (Senior Division) is 80 : 20. The High Court of

Delhi has already moved the Principal Secretary (LJ & LA),

Government of NCT of Delhi for increase of quota of Civil

Judge (Senior Division) to 25% from 20% i.e. an increase

12

from 96 Civil Judges (Senior Division) to 121 Civil Judges

(Senior Division), out of a total strength of 482.

12.It   is   the   grievance   of   the   said   two   judicial   officers­

applicants that on account of this peculiar situation, for 10%

quota under the LDCE, there are no candidates available for

promotion through merit.  It is their further grievance that in

ordinary course, a person would get promoted even to DHJS

in 10 years.  In this premise, the judicial officers­applicants

pray for modification of the orders dated 21

st

  March 2002

and 20

th

 April 2010 passed by this Court in the present writ

petition so as to do away with the requirement of 5 years

qualifying service as Civil Judge (Senior Division) and modify

the same with the requirement of 10 years total qualifying

service as Civil Judge.

13.This position is not disputed by the High Court of Delhi.

On the contrary, it is the prayer made by the High Court of

Delhi that the order be modified and the requirement of 10

years   minimum   qualifying   service   be   reduced   to   7   years

minimum qualifying service [(5 years as Civil Judge (Junior

13

Division) and 2 years as Civil Judge (Senior Division) under

the 25% quota].

14.The very purpose for providing the channel of promotion

through LDCE was to provide an incentive to the officers

amongst   the   relatively   junior   officers   to   improve   and   to

compete with each other so as to excel and  get quicker

promotion.  In the peculiar situation prevailing in the High

Court of  Delhi,  the  very purpose  is frustrated.    We are,

therefore, of the considered view that in the peculiar facts

and   circumstances,   both   I.A.   No.249   of   2009   and   I.A.

No.89454 of 2021 deserve to be allowed.  

15.Shri Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of

the High Court of Delhi has fairly stated that the High Court

of Delhi, on its own, has reserved two seats for the present

judicial   officers­applicants   so   that   their   claims   are   not

defeated by passage of time or by delay in holding of the

examination.

16.In view of the submission made by Shri Rao, no orders

are necessary to be passed in I.A. No. 89450 of 2021, I.A.

14

No.44132 of 2022 in I.A. No. 89450 of 2021 and I.A. No.88976

of 2021.

17.In the result, I.A. No. 89454 of 2021 filed by the judicial

officers­applicants and I.A. No. 249 of 2009 filed by the High

Court of Delhi are allowed in the following terms:

(i)Paragraph 28 (1) (b) of the order dated 21

st

 March

2002   passed   by   this   Court,   is   modified   and

substituted as under:

“25% by promotion strictly on the basis of

merit through LDCE of Civil Judges having

7   years   qualifying   service   [(5   years   as

Civil Judge (Junior Division) and 2 years

as   Civil   Judge   (Senior   Division)   or   10

years   qualifying   service   as   Civil   Judge

(Junior Division).”

(ii)Similarly, in the order dated 20

th

 April 2010 passed

by this Court, the direction in paragraph (7), i.e.,

“Thus, we direct that henceforth only 10% of the

cadre strength of District Judges be filled up by

limited departmental competitive examination with

those candidates who have qualified service of five

15

years as Civil Judge (Senior Division)”, is modified

and substituted as under:

“Thus, we direct that henceforth only 10%

of the cadre strength of District Judges be

filled   up   by   Limited   Departmental

Competitive   Examination   with   those

candidates who have qualified service of

7 years [(5 years as Civil Judge (Junior

Division)   and   2   years   as   Civil   Judge

(Senior   Division)   or   10   years   qualifying

service as Civil Judge(Junior Division).”

18.It   is   needless   to   state   that   since   the   aforesaid

modifications   are   being   directed   in   the   peculiar   facts   and

circumstances pertaining to the DHJS, the said modifications

shall apply only insofar as the DHJS is concerned. 

……..….......................J.

[L. NAGESWARA RAO]

…….........................J.       

[B.R. GAVAI]

……..….......................J.

[ANIRUDDHA BOSE]

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 19, 2022.

16