Supreme Court Grants Notional Promotion to Judicial Officers in Jharkhand

The Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment in the case of Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Ors. v. The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand & Ors., addressing the issue of promotions in the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service. The Court ruled that the appellants, who had successfully qualified the suitability test for promotion, could not be denied their rightful elevation to the post of District Judge merely due to their lower ranking in the merit list. This decision ensures that eligible judicial officers receive due promotions without arbitrary deprivation based on merit list placements.

Background of the Case

The dispute revolved around the promotion process for the post of District Judge in the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service. The appellants, who were serving as Civil Judges (Senior Division), participated in the selection process under the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Services (Recruitment, Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules, 2001. The applicable rules specified a three-way appointment system:

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-overturns-high-court-ruling-on-medical-faculty-promotions-in-kerala/

• 65% by promotion from Civil Judges (Senior Division) based on merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test.
• 10% by Limited Competitive Examination for Civil Judges (Senior Division) with at least five years of service.
• 25% by direct recruitment from the Bar through a written test and viva-voce.

The appellants had qualified for promotion under the 65% quota by securing the minimum required 40 marks. However, they were overlooked for promotion in favor of officers who had secured higher marks in the suitability test.

Legal Proceedings and High Court Ruling

• The High Court of Jharkhand issued a notification on May 30, 2019, appointing selected candidates as District Judges.
• The appellants filed a writ petition in the Jharkhand High Court challenging their exclusion from promotion.
• The High Court dismissed their petition on June 29, 2022, citing that the last selected candidate had obtained 51 marks, while the appellants had secured lower marks (50 and 43 in some cases).

Arguments by the Appellants (Judicial Officers)

• The appellants contended that they had successfully cleared the suitability test, and as per rules, promotions should not be solely determined based on a comparative merit list.
• They relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta v. High Court of Gujarat, where it was held that suitability tests assess a candidate’s eligibility, not relative ranking, for promotions.
• They argued that denying them promotion was unfair, as promotions were based on merit-cum-seniority and not strict merit.

Arguments by the Respondents (Jharkhand High Court & Others)

• The respondents maintained that promotions were granted to candidates who scored the highest in the suitability test.
• They contended that a higher merit ranking was necessary for fair selection, as limited vacancies were available.
• They argued that the appellants had failed to meet the selection criteria set by the High Court.

Supreme Court’s Observations

• “The suitability of each candidate should be tested on their own merit. The selection process should not convert into a comparative assessment that disadvantages those who meet eligibility criteria.”
• “For the 65% promotional quota, it is not necessary to rank candidates strictly based on marks. The assessment should be based on overall service record and merit-cum-seniority.”
• “Once a candidate is found suitable and qualifies for promotion, they cannot be ignored based on a merit ranking system that is not explicitly mandated by the rules.”
• “Denying promotion despite successful qualification undermines the principle of fair advancement in judicial services.”

Final Judgment

• The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s ruling.
• The appellants were granted notional promotion from the same date as their counterparts who were promoted under the 2019 notification.
• They were also entitled to all consequential service benefits, including seniority, increments, and notional pay fixation, but not back wages.

Conclusion

This ruling reinforces the principle that promotions in judicial services must adhere to established rules and not be distorted by arbitrary ranking systems. The Supreme Court’s decision ensures fair treatment for judicial officers and upholds the principle of merit-cum-seniority in career advancements.

Read also: https://judgmentlibrary.com/supreme-court-orders-university-to-resolve-pension-and-salary-disputes-for-absorbed-lecturer/

Petitioner Name: Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Ors..
Respondent Name: The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.
Place Of Incident: Jharkhand.
Judgment Date: 15-01-2025.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: dharmendra-kumar-sin-vs-the-hon’ble-high-cou-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-15-01-2025.pdf