Supreme Court of India
DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINGH & ORS.versusTHE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 72
- Decided
- 14 January 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- B V NAGARATHNA
Holding
A candidate who satisfies the suitability test for promotion under the 65% merit‑cum‑seniority quota cannot be denied promotion merely on the basis of a lower position in a merit list; such candidates are entitled to notional promotion with seniority from the date of appointment of those selected.
Summary
The appellants, senior civil judges in Jharkhand, qualified the suitability test for promotion to the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service but were not selected because junior judges with higher marks were placed ahead of them in a merit list. They challenged the High Court's dismissal of their writ petition, arguing that promotion under the 65% merit‑cum‑seniority quota should be based on individual suitability, not comparative ranking. The Supreme Court referred to its earlier decision in Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta v. Gujarat, which held that each candidate's suitability must be assessed on its own merit and a merit list cannot be the sole criterion. The Court found that the High Court erred in denying promotion solely on the basis of lower placement in the list, as the appellants had met the required suitability threshold. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order, and directed that the appellants receive notional promotion with seniority and related service benefits from the date of promotion of the selected officers, though not back wages.
Issues considered
- Whether a candidate who has passed the suitability test for promotion under the 65% merit‑cum‑seniority quota can be denied promotion solely because he is placed lower in a merit list relative to junior candidates.
- Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the writ petition on the ground of comparative marks, contrary to the Supreme Court’s precedent in Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta v. High Court of Gujarat.
- Whether the appellants are entitled to notional promotion with seniority and consequential benefits from the date of promotion of those selected.
Subjects
PromotionCivil Judges (Senior Division)Jharkhand Superior Judicial ServiceSuperior judiciaryNotification for appointmentQuota for promotion based upon merit-cum-senioritySuitability testCadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division)Selection processLast selected candidateComparative assessmentLegitimate right of promotionLower placement in merit listNotional promotionPost of District JudgeMerit listSelect listLimited Competitive ExaminationSuitability of candidate for promotionSeniority
Judgment
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 490 : 2025 INSC 72
Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Ors.
v.
The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 299 of 2025)
15 January 2025
[B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the promotion of the Civil Judges (Senior
Division) to Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service.
Headnotes†
Judiciary – Superior judiciary – Jharkhand Superior
Judicial Service – Promotion/appointment – Notification for
appointment in the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service –
Quota for promotion based upon merit-cum-seniority and
passing of suitability test is 65% – Appellants-promotee in
the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) participated in the
selection process, however not selected – Appellants obtained
more than the cut off marks for determining suitability of
the candidate, however, persons junior to them, who had
secured more marks promoted by preparing merit list – Writ
petition by appellants – Dismissed by the High Court on the
ground that appellants scored lower than the last selected
candidate – Correctness:
Held: Suitability of each candidate has to be tested on his own
merit and a comparative assessment cannot be made and the
promotion cannot be solely based upon merit list – Appellants
successfully qualified the suitability test, they could not have
been deprived of their legitimate right of promotion only on
account of lower placement in the merit list – Appellants have
been subsequently promoted – Appellants entitled for notional
promotion from the same date the other officers from the select
list prepared by the High Court have been appointed to the post
of District Judge in terms of the Notification – Orders passed by
* Author
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 491
Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Ors. v.
The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand & Ors.
the High Court set aside – Jharkhand Superior Judicial Services
(Recruitment, Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules,
2001 – rr.4, 5. [Paras 4-6]
Case Law Cited
Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta and Another v. High Court of
Gujarat and Others [2024] 5 SCR 1074 : 2024 SCC Online SC
972 – relied on.
List of Acts
Jharkhand Superior Judicial Services (Recruitment, Appointment
and Condition of Service) Rule, 2001.
List of Keywords
Promotion; Civil Judges (Senior Division); Jharkhand Superior
Judicial Service; Superior judiciary; Notification for appointment;
Quota for promotion based upon merit-cum-seniority; Suitability
test; Cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division); Selection process;
Last selected candidate; Comparative assessment; Legitimate
right of promotion; Lower placement in merit list; Notional
promotion; Post of District Judge; Merit list; Select list; Limited
Competitive Examination; Suitability of candidate for promotion;
Seniority.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 299 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.06.2022 of the High Court
of Jharkhand at Ranchi in WPS No. 3771 of 2019
Appearances for Parties
Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Adv., Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Mrs. Shalini
Chandra, Abhishek Kumar Pandey, Ms. Kavya Jhawar, Ms. Nandini
Rai, Mrs. Nandita Mishra, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ajit Kumar Sinha, Sr. Adv., Ashwarya Sinha, Saurabh Jain,
Ms. Tulika Mukherjee, Beenu Sharma, Venkat Narayan, Advs. for
the Respondents.
492 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Order
Satish Chandra Sharma, J.
1. The present appeal is arising out of judgment dated 29.06.2022
passed by High Court of Jharkhand in Writ Petition (C) No. 3771/2019,
by which the High Court has declined to entertain the relief for
quashment of notification dated 30.05.2019 whereby the private
respondents have been appointed to the post of District Judge in
the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service on promotion in the State
of Jharkhand.
2. The facts of the case reveal that appellant No. 1 was initially
appointed as Munsif [Civil Judge (Junior Division)] and was promoted
on 23.07.2014 in the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior Division) and
appellant Nos. 2 and 3 who were initially appointed as Civil Judge
(Junior Division) were promoted to the cadre of Civil Judge (Senior
Division) on 20.04.2016. In the combined gradation list of judicial
officers in the State of Jharkhand, the names of appellant Nos. 1, 2
and 3 find place at serial Nos. 141, 195 and 204 respectively. The
High Court of Jharkhand issued a notification dated 19.05.2018 for
appointment in the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service and the
appellants participated in the selection process. The rules governing
the field known as Jharkhand Superior Judicial Services (Recruitment,
Appointment and Condition of Service) Rule, 2001, provides for a
process of appointment to the service and Rules 4 and 5 of the said
Rules, read as under:
“4. APPOINTMENT TO THE SERVICE: Appointment to
the Service, which shall in the first instance ordinarily be
to the post of Additional District Judge, shall be made by
the Governor, in consultation with High Court:
(a) by direct recruitment of persons as recommended by
the High Court for such appointment under clause (2) of
Article 233 of the Constitution of India;
(b) by promotion from amongst the Sub-Judges (Civil
Judge, Senior Division) on the basis of merit-cum-seniority
and passing a suitability test and;
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 493
Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Ors. v.
The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand & Ors.
(c) by promotion on the basis of Limited Competitive
Examination of club Judges (Civil Judge, Senior Division)
having not less than 5 years service in the same cadre.
5. Of the total post in the cadre of service:-
(i) 65% shall be filled in by promotion from amongst the
Sub Judges (Civil Judge, Senior Division) on the basis of
merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test as may
from time to time be prescribed by the High Court.
(ii) 10% shall be filled in by promotion (by way of selection)
strictly on the basis of merit through a limited Competitive
examination of Sub Judges (Civil Judge, Senior Division)
having not less than 5 years service and also having due
regard to his service records in the past.
Provided, if candidates are not available for 10% quota,
or are not able to qualify in the examination, then vacant
post shall be filled up by regular promotion.
(iii) 25% shall be filled in by direct recruitment from the
Bar on the basis of written test and viva-voce conducted
by the High Court.
(iv) The suitability test as provided in Clause (i) above
shall comprise of:-
(a) Interview of 20 Marks,
(b) 60 Marks shall be earmarked on the basis of Service
Profile depending on the remarks earned by the Officer
in his A.C.R. during last 10 (ten) years of service, which
may include the Service as Civil Judge (Junior Division).
The marking pattern shall be as follows for this section:-
Outstanding - 6 Marks.
Very Good - 5 Marks.
Good - 4 Marks.
Satisfactory - 3 Marks.
Average - 2 Marks.
Poor - 1 Mark.
494 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
(c) Evaluation of Judgement - 10 Marks.
(d) Maximum of 10 Marks shall be earmarked on the basis
of 1 mark against each year of completion of Service as
Civil Judge (Senior Division) by the Officer.
The candidate obtaining minimum 40 Marks in aggregate
shall be treated suitable for appointment on promotion.
However, the intense seniority in the Cadre of Superior
Judicial Service of such suitable candidates/Officers shall
be determined in terms of Rules 8(b) of these Rules.”
3. The aforesaid rules provide for promotion by Limited Competitive
examination, promotion from Civil Judge (Senior Division) and by
Direct Recruitment. The quota for Direct Recruitment is 25%, the
quota for promotion based upon merit-cum-seniority and passing
of suitability test is 65% and the remaining is to be filled up by
Limited Competitive examination. It is undisputed fact that the cut
off marks for determining suitability of a candidate for promotion was
fixed as 40 marks and undisputedly appellants have obtained more
than 40 marks, however, the persons junior to them were promoted by
preparing a merit list and by promoting those who have more marks
than the appellants. The appellants’ writ petition was dismissed by
the High Court on the ground that the appellant No. 1 got 50 marks,
appellant No. 2 got 50 marks and appellant no. 3 got 43 marks and
the last selected candidate got 51 marks.
4. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant has straight away
drawn the attention of this Court towards the judgment delivered
by a Three Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Ravikumar
Dhansukhlal Maheta and Another Vs. High Court of Gujarat
and Others 2024 SCC Online SC 972 to contend that in similar
circumstances in respect of similar criteria, this Court has held that
the suitability of each candidate has to be tested on his own merit
and a comparative assessment cannot be made and the promotion
cannot be solely based upon merit list. Para 141 of the judgment
delivered by this Court reads as under:
“141. We summarise our final conclusion as under:—
(A) What has been conveyed, in so many words, by this
Court in All India Judges’ Association (3) (supra) is that
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 495
Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Ors. v.
The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand & Ors.
the suitability of each candidate should be tested on their
own merit. The aforesaid decision does not speak about
comparative merit for the 65% promotional quota. In other
words, what is stipulated is the determination of suitability
of the candidates and assessment of their continued
efficiency with adequate knowledge of case law.
(B) For the 65% promotional quota this Court in All India
Judges’ Association (3) (supra) did not state that after taking
the suitability test, a merit list should be prepared and the
judicial officers should be promoted only if they fall in the
said merit list. It cannot be said to be a competitive exam.
Only the suitability of the judicial officer is determined and
once it is found that candidates have secured the requisite
marks in the suitability test, they cannot be thereafter
ignored for promotion.
(C) However, we clarify that for the 65% promotional
quota, it is for a particular High Court to prescribe or lay
down its own minimum standard to judge the suitability of
a judicial officer, including the requirement of comparative
assessment, if necessary, for the purpose of determining
merit to be objectively adjudged keeping in mind the
statutory rules governing the promotion or any promotion
policy in that regard.
(D) We find no fault with the promotion process adopted
by the High Court of Gujarat as the same fulfils the twin
requirements stipulated in paragraph 27 of All India Judges’
Association (3) (supra) being : -
(I) The objective assessment of legal knowledge of the
judicial officer including adequate knowledge of case law
and;
(II) Evaluation of the continued efficiency of the individual
candidates.
(E) The four components of the Suitability Test as
prescribed under the recruitment notice dated 12.04.2022
comprehensively evaluate (i) the legal knowledge
including knowledge of the case law through the objective
496 [2025] 1 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
MCQ - based written test AND (ii) the continued efficiency
by evaluation of the ACRs, average disposal and past
judgments of the concerned judicial officer.
(F) We are of the view that if the contention of the petitioners
were to be accepted then it would completely obliterate the
fine distinction between the two categories of promotion
in the cadre of District & Sessions Judge by way of 65%
promotion on the basis of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ and 10%
promotion strictly on the basis of merit. In other words,
the 65% quota for promotion will assume the character
of the 10% quota for promotion by way of a departmental
competitive examination which is distinct in its nature since
the latter is strictly based on merit.
(G) Deviating from the process of promotion duly followed
by the High Court of Gujarat since 2011 would cause
grave prejudice to those judicial officers who lost out in the
previous selections to the Higher Judicial Service despite
having scored higher marks in the suitability test since,
judicial officers who were relatively senior were promoted
to the cadre of District & Sessions Judges. Accepting
the argument of the petitioners would completely flip the
process and displace the respondents once again, for a
contrary reason.”
5. In light of the aforesaid judgment, as the appellants have successfully
qualified the suitability test, they could not have been deprived of
their legitimate right of promotion only on account of lower placement
in the merit list. At this juncture, it has been brought to the notice
of this Court that the appellants have been subsequently promoted
and the issue now remains in respect of their seniority alone. In view
of the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Ravikumar
Dhansukhlal Maheta and Another (supra), the appellants are
certainly entitled for promotion from the same date the other officers
from the select list prepared by the High Court of Jharkhand have
been appointed to the post of District Judge in terms of notification
dated 30.05.2019.
6. Resultantly, the Civil Appeal is allowed and the orders passed by
the High Court of Jharkhand is set aside. The appellants shall be
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 497
Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Ors. v.
The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand & Ors.
entitled for notional promotion from the date other officers have been
promoted to the post of District Judge in terms of notification dated
30.05.2019. They shall also be entitled for all consequential service
benefits, including, seniority, increments, notional pay fixation etc.,
however, they shall not be entitled for any back wages.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Promotion"Sign in to search