Summary
By an interim order, the Court stayed Gujarat District Judge promotions only for promotees outside the first 68 candidates in the aggregate merit list. It provisionally found that ranking qualified candidates by seniority after applying a minimum benchmark departed from the prescribed merit-cum-seniority method. Promotions of those already within the first 68 on merit continued. The writ petition was left pending for final hearing, subject to the Chief Justice’s administrative directions.
Issues
- Whether the promotion method prima facie complied with merit-cum-seniority under the Gujarat judicial-service rules.
- Whether longstanding use of the method or the Court’s monitoring of recruitment precluded its examination.
- What interim protection was warranted pending final adjudication of the writ petition.
Provisions considered
- Rule 5(1)(i), Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005, as amended in 2011The 65% promotion channel required merit-cum-seniority and a suitability test. For interim relief, the Court found the use of merit only as a qualifying benchmark followed by seniority inconsistent with that requirement. (¶¶ 2.2, 8, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.8, 8.9, 9)
- District Judge (65%) suitability assessment, Gujarat High Court Recruitment Notice dated 12 April 2022The notice prescribed merit-cum-seniority with four assessment components. The Court’s provisional view required aggregate assessment across those components rather than merely qualifying in them and then ranking by seniority. (¶¶ 2.3, 2.4, 4.3, 5, 8.1, 8.3, 8.4, 9)
Held
- The writ petition was entertained directly in the circumstances, including Full Court approval of the challenged selection and the governing directions in All India Judges’ Association. Monitoring the timetable for judicial recruitment did not itself determine or immunise the promotion methodology challenged here. (¶¶ 6, 8.6)
- For purposes of deciding interim relief, the Court found that treating merit as a minimum benchmark and then selecting by seniority applied seniority-cum-merit rather than the prescribed merit-cum-seniority. Its provisional reasoning favoured aggregate merit across the four suitability components, with seniority carrying weight where merit and ability were approximately equal. The Court expressly left the petition for final adjudication. (¶¶ 8, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.8, 8.9, 9)
- Following a method since 2011, or pointing to similar practice in other High Courts, did not justify perpetuating a method found prima facie inconsistent with the applicable rules and this Court’s directions. The specific recruitment rules had to be followed. (¶¶ 8.5, 8.7, 8.8, 9)
- The operation and further implementation of the select list dated 10 March 2023 and notification dated 18 April 2023 were stayed only as regards promotees whose names did not appear in the first 68 candidates on the aggregate merit list produced with the High Court’s counter. Those affected were to return to their original posts; promotions of promotees within that first 68 continued. The order did not finally quash the selection or grant the petitioners appointments. (¶ 9)
- The writ petition remained pending. The Court proposed hearing by a Bench headed by the Chief Justice, subject to appropriate administrative orders, and directed listing for final hearing on 8 August 2023. (¶¶ 9, 10)
Result
Limited interim stay of the selection and promotion notification for promotees outside the first 68 on merit; affected promotees to return to original posts. Other specified promotions continued. Writ petition retained for final hearing, with listing directions.