Supreme Court Strikes Down Gujarat High Court’s Promotion List for District Judges

The case of Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta & Anr. v. High Court of Gujarat & Ors. revolves around the criteria for promoting Senior Civil Judges to the cadre of District Judges under the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the Gujarat High Court followed the principle of ‘merit-cum-seniority’ or wrongfully applied the ‘seniority-cum-merit’ rule in its selection process.

The judgment is significant as it sets a precedent for judicial promotions, reinforcing the importance of merit-based selection and upholding the integrity of judicial appointments.

Background of the Case

The petitioners were Senior Civil Judges in Gujarat who aspired to be promoted to the District Judge cadre under the 65% quota for internal promotions. The Gujarat High Court had issued a Select List on March 10, 2023, promoting certain judges while excluding others, including the petitioners, despite their higher merit scores.

Key facts of the case:

The recruitment process was governed by Rule 5(1)(i) of the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005, which mandates that 65% of District Judge posts be filled by promotion on a ‘merit-cum-seniority’ basis and by passing a suitability test.
A recruitment notice dated April 12, 2022, was issued, listing 205 judicial officers eligible for promotion.
The selection process included a Written Test (100 marks), Evaluation of Annual Confidential Reports (20 marks), Average Disposal of Cases (20 marks), and Evaluation of Judgments (60 marks), totaling 200 marks.
The High Court conducted a written test on October 16, 2022, and published a list of 175 successful candidates.
The petitioners secured high scores—one obtaining 148.5 out of 200, the highest in the selection process.
Despite their high scores, the petitioners were not promoted, while other lower-scoring candidates were selected.
The Gujarat government issued a promotion order on April 18, 2023, subject to the outcome of this petition.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioners, represented by Senior Advocate R. Basant, contended:

The Gujarat High Court wrongfully applied the ‘seniority-cum-merit’ principle instead of ‘merit-cum-seniority.’
The selection process was flawed because lower-scoring candidates were preferred over highly meritorious candidates.
The selection should have been based strictly on merit, with seniority only being considered when merit scores were equal.
Similar cases in Jharkhand, Calcutta, and Andhra Pradesh High Courts followed the correct merit-based approach.
The High Court’s methodology violated Article 14 of the Constitution and went against Supreme Court precedents, including All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 247.

Respondent’s Arguments

The Gujarat High Court, represented by Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, countered:

The selection followed a long-standing method applied since 2011.
The process was transparent and in line with the rules governing judicial promotions.
Seniority had to be considered after candidates met the minimum merit benchmark (40% per component, 50% overall).
The petitioners had participated in the selection process and could not challenge it after being unsuccessful.

Supreme Court Judgment

The case was heard by Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar. The Supreme Court struck down the Gujarat High Court’s Select List and ruled in favor of the petitioners.

1. Merit-Cum-Seniority Must Be Strictly Followed

The Court held that the High Court had wrongly followed a ‘seniority-cum-merit’ approach:

“After conducting the suitability test, the selection should have been based solely on merit, with seniority playing a role only in cases where merit scores were equal.”

2. High Merit Scores Cannot Be Ignored

The Court ruled that highly meritorious candidates could not be ignored in favor of less qualified candidates:

“A candidate who secures 148.5 marks out of 200 cannot be denied promotion while someone with 101 marks is selected.”

3. Selection Process Was Flawed

The Court found that the methodology adopted by the Gujarat High Court violated established legal precedents:

“The High Court has given a go-by to the principle of merit-cum-seniority, rendering the entire selection process unsustainable.”

4. Promotion List Stayed

The Court ruled that the promotions could not proceed under the flawed selection list:

“The Select List dated 10.03.2023 and the appointment order dated 18.04.2023 are hereby stayed, and promotees must revert to their previous posts.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court ruled:

The Gujarat High Court’s Select List was invalid.
The promotions were stayed, and officers were to return to their previous posts.
A new merit-based selection process had to be conducted.
The petitioners’ claims were upheld, ensuring that promotions adhered to the correct criteria.

Conclusion

This judgment reinforces the principle that judicial promotions must be based on merit, ensuring the most qualified judges rise to higher positions. The ruling also sets a precedent for judicial transparency, ensuring that promotion processes are fair and merit-driven.

Petitioner Name: Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta & Anr..
Respondent Name: High Court of Gujarat & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice M.R. Shah, Justice C.T. Ravikumar.
Place Of Incident: Gujarat.
Judgment Date: 12-05-2023.

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

Download Judgment: ravikumar-dhansukhla-vs-high-court-of-gujara-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-12-05-2023.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Promotion Cases
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Judgment by Mukeshkumar Rasikbhai Shah
See all petitions in Judgment by C.T. Ravikumar
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Stayed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2023
See all petitions in 2023 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category