ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERSversusUNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

692            SUPREME COURT
                         [2022]REPORTS
                                5 S.C.R. 692                  [2022] 5 S.C.R.


A            ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS
                                          v.
                       UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
                              (I.A No. 89454 of 2021)
B                                        In
                        (Writ Petition (C) No.1022 of 1989)
                                  APRIL 19, 2022
                 [L. NAGESWARA RAO, B. R GAVAI, AND
C                       ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
             Judiciary – Delhi Higher Judicial service – Appointment – In
      order dated 21 March 2002 by Supreme Court, it was held that the
      ratio of 75% appointment by promotion and 25% by direct
      recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service is to be maintained –
D     Two methods are to be adopted for appointment by promotion, 50%
      of the total posts are to be filled by promotion on the basis of principle
      of merit-cum-seniority and remaining 25% on the basis of merit
      through Limited departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for
      which qualifying service as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) should
      not be less than 5 years – In order dated 20 April 2010 by Supreme
E
      Court, it was held that there is difficulty in finding candidate for
      LDCE for the 25% post reserved, hence, it is to be reduced to 10%
      – Interlocutory Applications (I.A) were filed by two judicial officers
      in the cadre of Delhi judicial services for modifications of orders
      dated 21.03.2002 and 20.04.2010 passed by Supreme Court and
F     seeking permission to participate in LDCE for promotion to Delhi
      Higher Judicial service (DHJS) – Another I.A was filed by High
      Court of Delhi for reducing the minimum qualifying service to 7
      years from 10 years for promotion to the DHJS under 25 % quota
      of LDCE – Held: Purpose for providing the channel of promotion
      through LDCE was to provide an incentive to the officers to improve
G
      and to compete with each other so as to excel and get quicker
      promotion – Nature of work to be performed by the Civil judge
      (Junior division) and Civil Judge (Senior division) is the same –
      Except for the difference in pay scale, there is no difference with
      regard to powers and duties by the said judges – Therefore, 10% of
H     the cadre strength of District Judges be filled up by LDCE with
                                         692
  ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS v. UNION OF                       693
                   INDIA AND OTHERS

those candidates who have qualified service of 7 years [(5 years as         A
Civil Judge(Jr. Division) and 2 years as Civil Judge(Sr. Division)
or 10 years as Civil judge(Jr. Division)] in regard to the promotion
on the basis of merit through LDCE.
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: I.A. No.89454 of 2021
in Writ Petition (C) no.1022 of 1989.                                       B
      (UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
      With
      I.A. Nos.89450 and 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      C
of 1989.
       K. M. Nataraj, ASG, Vikas Mahajan, Tapesh Kumar Singh, AAGs,
Siddharth Bhatnagar, (Amicus Curiae), Wasim Qadri, A. D. N. Rao, P.
N. Ravindran, Jaideep Gupta, Dr. Manish Singhvi, P. S. Patwalia, Sr.
Advs., Ankit Yadav, Ms. Pracheta Kar, Aditya Sidhra, Nadeem Afroz,          D
T. A. Khan, Nalin Kohli, B. K. Satija, Sharath Nambiar, Ms. Neela Kedar
Gokhale, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Ms. Kavita Jha, Aditeya Bali, Sachin Patil,
Rahul Chitnis, Aaditya A. Pande, Geo Joseph, Ms. Shwetal Shepal,
Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Mrs. Amita Gupta, Rakesh Dahiya, A.
Venayagam Balan, Abhijit Sengupta, Pravir Kumar Jain, Ms. A.
Subhashini, M. Shoeb Alam, Shibashish Misra, Karan Bharihoke, Ajay          E
Kumar, M. A. Chinnasamy, Satish Kumar, T. V. Ratnam, Apoorv Kurup,
Mohit Prasad, Ms. Nidhi Mittal, Ojaswa Pathak, Sibo Sankar Mishra,
Ms. G. Indira, Anandh Kannan N., Gopal Jha, Nishant Verma, Shreyash
Bhardwaj, Ms. Mamta Shrivastava, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Krishnanand
Pandeya, Sanjay Sharawat, Anil Nag, Romy Chacko, R. N. Keswani,             F
Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Guntur Prabhakar, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy,
Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Uday B. Dube, Kaustubh Dube, Pravir
Choudhary, V. K. Sidharthan, Raj Kumar Mehta, Anil Shrivastav, Gopal
Singh, Rakesh K. Sharma, Abhisth Kumar, Mrs. V. D. Khanna, Sanjay
Jain, Pradeep Misra, Prashant Kumar, G. Prakash, Ashok Kumar Singh,
Ms. Pragya Singh, Ms. Akshay Singh, Shantwanu Singh, P. V. Dinesh,          G
T. G. Narayanan Nair, Ms. Priya Balakrishnan, Ratan Kumar Choudhuri,
P. Parmeswaran, Radha Shyam Jena, Gopal Balwant Sathe, Mrs.
Revathy Raghavan, P. V. Yogeswaran, T. L. Garg, V. N. Raghupathy, P.
K. Jain, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Sunil Fernandes, Mrs. Bina Gupta, Jitendra
Mohan Sharma, T. Mahipal, Shrish Kumar Misra, Kamal Mohan Gupta,
                                                                            H
694            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2022] 5 S.C.R.


A     Parijat Sinha, Kishan Datta, Ms. A. Sumathi, B. D. Sharma, Haresh
      Raichura, Sameer Parekh, Kshatrashal Raj, Ms. Tanya Chaudhry, Ms.
      Pratyusha Priyadarshini, Ms. Nitika Pandey, M/s Parekh & Co., S. R.
      Setia, Ms. Meera Mathur, Naresh K. Sharma, Ms. N. Annapoorani,
      Manish K. Bishnoi, B. V. Balaram Das, Ajit Pudussery, Ms. S. Janani,
      Kanhaiya Priyadarshi, S. K. Bhattacharya, Praveen Swarup, Ms. Payal
B
      Swarup, Syed Jafar Husain, M/s Gagrat And Co., Mukesh K. Giri, T. V.
      George, Ashok Mathur, Ranjan Mukherjee, Rajesh Srivastava, Sunil
      Kumar Jain, Ms. Rashika Swarup, Ms. Kumud Lata Das, M. Veerappa,
      Chander Shekhar Ashri, Alok Kumar, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, K. R.
      Sasiprabhu, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Surya Kant, Rajiv Mehta, K. Ram
C     Kumar, Dr. J. P. Dhanda, T. Harish Kumar, Arun K. Sinha, M/s Corporate
      Law Group, R. Sathish, P. I. Jose, Prashant K. Sharma, Jenis Francis,
      Anupam Mishra, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Abhinav Mukerji, Ms. Bihu
      Sharma, Akshay C. Shrivastava, Ms. Prathistha Vij, Sanjai Kumar
      Pathak, Mrs. Shashi Pathak, Kunal Chatterji, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee,
      Rohit Bansal, Amrish Kumar, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Ms. Aswathi
D
      M. K., Arpit Prakash, D. K. Devesh, Sumeer Sodhi, Ms. Shreya Nair, P.
      Mohith Rao, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, T. N. Rama Rao, Hitesh Kumar
      Sharma, S. K. Rajora, Akhileshwar Jha, T. L. V. Ramachari, Ajay Bansal,
      Gaurav Yadava, Kuldeep Singh, Ms. Veena Bansal, Suhaan Mukerji,
      Aditya Prakash, Nikhil Parikshith, Vishal Prasad, Abhishek Manchanda,
E     Sayandeep Pahari, Tanmay Sinha, M/s PLR Chambers And Co.,
      Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Karun Sharma,
      Sharan Thakur, Mahesh Thakur, Siddharth Thakur, Ms. Vipasha Singh,
      Ajay Kanojiya, Bishwendra Singh, Ashutosh Dubey, Vivek Mahajan,
      Vidit Anand, Vinod Sharma, Surinder Singh Manak, Parijat Som, Arun
      Singh, Salik Ram, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Ms. Anu K. Joy, Alim Anvar,
F
      Satish Pandey, G. N. Reddy, Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Avijit Mani
      Tripathi, T. K. Nayak, P. S. Negi, Daniel Lyngdoh, Braj Kishore Mishra,
      Raghvendra Kumar, Anand Kumar Dubey, Nishant Verma, Rajiv Kumar
      Sinha, Ms. Simanta Kumar, Sunil Saraogi, Sandeep Kumar Sen, Narendra
      Kumar, Siddhesh Kotwal, Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Ms. Manya Hasija, Akash
G     Singh, Nirnimesh Dube, Shuvodeep Roy, Kabir Shankar Bose, Ishaan
      Borthakur, Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad, Kumar Anurag Singh,
      Anando Mukherjee Sen, Shwetank Singh, Beenu Sharma, Som Raj
      Choudhury, Ms. Shrutee Aradhana, Ms. Mrinal Elker Mazumdar, Ms.
      Indira Bhakar, Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Ms. Nupur Sharma, Shobhit
      Dwivedi, Sanjeev Kumar Mahara, Ms. Astha Sharma, Chirag M. Shroff,
H
     ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS v. UNION OF                      695
                      INDIA AND OTHERS

Amandeep Mehta, Ankit Mishra, Sunny Choudhary, Purushottam Sharma             A
Tripathi, Mukesh Kumar Singh, Ravi Chandra Prakash, Sahil Tagotra,
S. P. Mukherjee, Rakesh Talukdar, Adarsh Upadhyay, Chanchal Kumar
Ganguli, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Sukant Vikram, Aditya Pratap Singh,
Aditya Narayan Das, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, P. S. Sudheer, Malak Manish
Bhatt, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Amit Kumar Singh, Ms. Chubalemla Chang,
                                                                              B
Aravindh S., Avneesh Arputham, M/s Arputham Aruna And Co., Siddharth
Sangal, Ms. Vaidehi Kothari, Arjun Garg, Aakash Nandolia, Ms. Sagun
Srivastava, Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, Advs. for the appearing
parties.
         The Order of the Court was passed by
                                                                              C
         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 referred to as “DJS”)
namely Ms. Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan and Dr. Shirish Aggarwal, for
modification of the orders dated 21st March 20021 and 20th April 20102        D
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 15th
July 2021, for promotion to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (hereinafter    E
referred to as “DHJS”) District Judge Cadre and to consider the
candidature of the judicial officers-applicants 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      F
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 officers-applicants. I.A. No.88976
of 2021 has also been filed by the same judicial officers praying for their
impleadment as co-petitioners in the present writ petition.
                                                                              G
       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.

1
    (2002) 4 SCC 247
2
    (2010) 15 SCC 170                                                         H
696            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2022] 5 S.C.R.


A           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.
B            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
C     Commission”) under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice K.J. Shetty vide
      Resolution dated 21st 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 21st March 2002, passed in the present writ
D     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
E           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
F           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,
            hard-working as they are, become more efficient. It is imperative
G           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,
            objectively adjudged, for officers who are to enter the Higher
H
  ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS v. UNION OF                           697
             INDIA AND OTHERS [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

      Judicial Service as Additional District Judges and District Judges.       A
      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
                                                                                B
      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        C
      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
                                                                                D
      Higher Judicial Service must be filled by promotion on the basis
      of principle of merit-cum-seniority. 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 case-law.
      The remaining 25 per cent of the posts in the service shall be            E
      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.”
                                                                                F
        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        G
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 merit-
cum-seniority and the remaining 25% of posts in the service should be           H
698             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 5 S.C.R.


A     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
B           Judges will be:
                   (1)(a) 50 per cent by promotion from amongst the Civil
                   Judges (Senior Division) on the basis of principle of merit-
                   cum-seniority and passing a suitability test;

C                  (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
D                  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.”
E            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 22nd 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:-
F
            (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 merit-cum-
            seniority and passing a suitability test;

G           (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 per rule 7C on the basis of
H           the written and viva voce test, conducted by the High Court.
  ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS v. UNION OF                         699
             INDIA AND OTHERS [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

      (2) The first and second posts will go to category (a) (by promotion    A
      on the basis of seniority-cum-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. ……                                                                  B
      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 sub-rule (1) of rule 7 in the
      following manner:-                                                      C
             (i)     Written Examination - 600 marks
             (ii)    Assessment of Record -150 marks
             (iii)   Viva voce - 250 marks
                                                                              D
      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   E
      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 came up for discussion before the Full        F
Court of the High Court of Delhi in its meeting dated 5th 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     G
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
                                                                              H
700             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2022] 5 S.C.R.


A     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.
B
             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 20th April
      2010. It will be apposite to refer to the following paragraphs of the said
      order:
C           “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.
D
            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
E
            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
F           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
G           by holding limited departmental competitive examination is in
            progress, such 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.
H
  ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS v. UNION OF                            701
             INDIA AND OTHERS [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

       8. Hereinafter, there shall be 25% of seats for direct recruitment        A
       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
                                                                                 B
       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
       1-1-2011. If the Rules are not suitably amended, this order shall
       prevail and further recruitment from 1-1-2011 shall be continued
                                                                                 C
       accordingly as directed by us. The time schedule prescribed in
       the order dated 4-1-2007 (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       D
       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 said posts remained unfilled.
This Court, therefore, reduced the said 25% quota to 10%.                        E
       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
officers-applicants herein have filed the aforesaid I.As. The first one
being for modification of the orders of this Court dated 21st March 2002
and 20th April 2010.                                                             F
       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         G
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
                                                                                 H
702             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2022] 5 S.C.R.


A     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
B     further grievance that in ordinary course, a person would get promoted
      even to DHJS in 10 years. In this premise, the judicial officers-applicants
      pray for modification of the orders dated 21st March 2002 and 20th 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
C     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
D     Civil Judge (Junior 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
E     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.
F            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 officers-applicants
      so that their claims are not defeated by passage of time or by delay in
      holding of the examination.
G           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. 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 officers-
      applicants andI.A. No. 249 of 2009 filed by the High Court of Delhi are
H     allowed in the following terms:
  ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS v. UNION OF                            703
             INDIA AND OTHERS [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

       (i)     Paragraph 28 (1) (b) of the order dated 21st March 2002           A
               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           B
               service as Civil Judge(Junior Division).”
       (ii)    Similarly, in the order dated 20th 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              C
               competitive examination with those candidates who have
               qualified service of five 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               D
               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).”
                                                                                 E
       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.

                                                                                 F
Devika Gujral                                                   I.As. allowed.
(Assisted by : Shevali Monga, LCRA)




                                                                                 G




                                                                                 H