Supreme Court Upholds Gujarat High Court’s Promotion Policy for District Judges

New Delhi, India — In a significant ruling on Friday, the Supreme Court upheld the Gujarat High Court’s policy of allocating a 65% quota to Civil Judges (senior division) for promotion to the rank of Additional District & Sessions Judge (AD&SJ) based on merit-cum-seniority. This decision affirms the 2005 service rules that govern the promotion criteria for judicial officers in the state.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India D. Y. Chandrachud and Justices J. B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, emphasized that deviating from the established promotion process would unfairly disadvantage judicial officers who had previously scored higher marks in the suitability test but missed out on promotions.

“We find no fault with the promotion process adopted by the High Court of Gujarat as the same fulfils the twin requirements,” stated the bench. The court further clarified that each High Court has the authority to set its own minimum standards for assessing the suitability of judicial officers for the 65% promotional quota, including the necessity of a comparative assessment.

The Supreme Court also vacated the interim stay it had imposed on the promotion of 68 judicial officers to district judges, a decision initially stayed due to a legal challenge. This included the promotion of Surat Chief Judicial Magistrate Harish Hasmukhbhai Varma, who had notably convicted Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in a defamation case.

The Apex Court was hearing a plea from senior civil judge cadre officers Ravikumar Maheta and Sachin Prataprai Mehta, who had challenged the selection process that led to the promotion of the 68 judicial officers. The Supreme Court’s decision effectively upholds the Gujarat High Court’s promotion policy, which has been in place since 2011, reinforcing the criteria of merit-cum-seniority for advancing judicial careers within the state.

This ruling underscores the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining consistent and fair promotion practices, ensuring that merit and seniority are appropriately balanced in the elevation of judicial officers.

Source Link

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!