Holding

The High Court did not act unreasonably; promotion on merit may supersede senior officers, and there was no illegality in its refusal to grant the selection grade.

Summary

The petitioners, members of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service, challenged the Delhi High Court's refusal to grant a selection grade promotion to an Additional District Judge who was directly recruited as a Scheduled Castes candidate. They claimed the High Court acted unreasonably and that merit‑based promotion should consider the petitioner’s integrity and social background. The Supreme Court held that promotion on merit may legitimately supersede senior officers and that the High Court’s assessment, which found junior officers more suitable, was not unreasonable. While the Court found no illegality in the High Court’s order, it urged the High Court to consider the petitioner sympathetically in the next selection round, noting his honest record and weaker‑section background. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed without costs.

Issues considered

Whether the Delhi High Court acted unreasonably in refusing the selection grade promotion to the petitioner.
Whether merit‑based promotion can lawfully supersede seniority within the Delhi Higher Judicial Service.
Whether considerations of the petitioner’s Scheduled Caste status and integrity should affect the promotion decision.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 233, s. Article 235

Subjects

promotionselection grademeritseniorityjudicial serviceScheduled Casteintegrityadministrative lawArticle 32justiciability

Judgment

r

ALL INDIA BACKWARD CLASSES AND MINORITIES A
WELFARE ASSOCIATION & ANR.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

APRIL 19, 1988
B
[K.N. SINGH AND M.H. KANIA, JJ.]

Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules: Additional District Judge-
Refusal of Selection grade--Justiciability of.

Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 233 and 235-Judicial C
Officer-Promotion to higher grade/post-Made on criteria of merit-
Junior Officer bound to supersede his senior-Integrity of judicial
officer-Great asset to administration of justice-To be given due
consideration.

The 2nd petitioner, a member of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service D
and working as an Additional District Judge in a writ petition to this
Court, contended that he was directly recruited to service as a
Scheduled Castes candidate and that the High Court had acted in an
unreasonable manner in refusing to grant selection grade to him on
more than one occasion.
E
· Disposing of the Writ Petition,

HELD: I. Where promotion to higher grade or post is made on
the criteria of ·merit, many a time a junior officer is bound to supersede
his senior. In the process of assessment of comparative merit, superses-
sion of a senior officer may result. This cannot he helped. [614G-Hl F

In the instant case, the petitioner was considered on merit along
with others, and as the High Court found officers junior to him suitable
for grant of selection grade the petitioner could not be selected. This
Court finds no illegality in the High Court's order. [615A]
G
2. Integrity of a judicial officer is a great asset to administration
of justice. It must be given due weight. [6JSC]

3. The petitioner in the instant case, comes from a weaker section
of the society and he has been found to be an honest officer. This fact
needs consideration. The High Court should consider the petitioner's H
6}3
614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1988) 3 S.C.R.

case sympathetkallv for the grant of selection grade at the next
A
selection. I61 SD I

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 5858of1983.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
B .....
G.L. Sanghi, M. T. Siddiqi and Irfan Ahmed for the Petitioners.

Anil Dev Singh, C. Ramesh, K. Swami and Miss A. Subhashini
I,
for the Respondents.

c
The following Order of the Court was delivered: "'._, I

ORDER

The Petitioner is a member of Delhi Higher Judicial Service, at
present working as Additional district Judge. The petitioner was
D directly recruited to service as a Scheduled Castes candidate. He has
approached this Court by means of this petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution with a grievance that the High Court of Delhi has acted in
an unreasonable manner in refusing to grant selection grade to him on
more than one occasion. A number of other allied questions were
raised during the course of arguments but ultimately on behalf of the fl,
E petitioner only the grievance relating to the refusal of selection grade
was pressed.

~
Having heard learned counsel for the parties at a length and
having perused the records and also the annual confidential reports
awarded to the petitioner and other papers produced on behalf of the
F High Court, we find it difficult to hold that the High Court has acted
unreasonably in refusing to grant selection grade to the petitioner.
Admittedly grant of selection grade was considered on the criteria of
merit to the members of Delhi Higher Judicial Service. Whenever a
post in the selection grade was available the High Court considered the
petitioner along with other officers but on a comparative assessment of
G merit of eligible officers, it granted selection grade to the officers who
were junior to the petitioner and in that process the petitioner stood
superseded. Where promotion to higher grade or post is made on the ~
criteria of merit, many a time junior officer is bound to supersede his
senior in the process of assessment of comparative merit, which may
result in supersession of a senior officer. This cannot be helped since
H the petitioner's case was considered on merit along with others. and as
ALL INDIA BACKWARD ASSCN: v. U.0.1. 615

the High Court found officers junior to the petitioner suitable for grant A
of selection grade the petitioner could not be selected. We find no
'
il.ega1··t:y m '- HighCourt' s ord ers.
. Le

However, we would like to refer one aspect which needs consi-
deration. On a perusal of the confidential character roll entries and
other papers produced before us on behalf of the High Court, we find B
that since March 1979 to July 1980 the monthly statement of work
done by the petitioner as assessed by the High Court on the basis of the.
report of the District Judge shows that the High Court rated his work
and conduct as "good" and for the years 1982-83, 1983-84, 1984-85,
1985-86 and 1986-87 the petitioner has been awarded 'B' grading. No
doubt he has not earned 'A' grading but the confidential reports show c
that he is an honest officer. Integrity of a judicial officer is a great asset
to administration of justice, it must be given due. weight. The
petitioner comes from a weaker section of the society.and he has been
found to be an honest officer, this fact needs consideration. In ·our
opinion the High Court should consider 'the petitioner's: case
sympathetically for the grant of. selection grade in the light of our D
observations at the next selection.

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly, there will be no order as
to costs.

N.V.K. Petition disposed of.·

'·._ """·