Supreme Court Establishes Uniform 4-Point Annual Roster for HJS Seniority; Rejects Preferential Weightage for Promotees or LDCE Officers

Case Name: All India Judges Association & Others v. Union of India & Others
Citation: 2025 INSC 1328
Date of Judgment/Order: 19 November 2025
Bench: B.R. Gavai, CJI; Surya Kant, J.; Vikram Nath, J.; K. Vinod Chandran, J.; Joymalya Bagchi, J.

Held: The Supreme Court held that seniority within the Higher Judicial Service (HJS) must be determined through a uniform annual 4-point roster—two points for Regular Promotees (RPs), one for LDCE officers, and one for Direct Recruits (DRs)—which all States must incorporate into their statutory service rules. The Court rejected all proposals to grant additional seniority, preferential quotas, or compensatory weightage to Promotees or LDCE officers on the basis of prior service in the lower judiciary, ruling that such distinctions revive the impermissible “birthmark” doctrine and violate Articles 14 and 16. The Court further held that officers entering the common cadre lose their recruitment-source identity and must compete purely on merit-cum-seniority within the HJS. Limited exceptions were created to accommodate delays in recruitment processes, but only to preserve parity where delays were systemic and not attributable to individual officers.

Summary: The interlocutory application sought modification of existing HJS seniority rules to address perceived “heartburn” among Promotees and LDCE officers, who argued that younger Direct Recruits progress faster to Selection Grade, Super Time Scale, and higher judicial positions. The Amicus proposed alternatives including a 1:1 quota for higher grades, seniority weightage for prior lower-court service, or three separate seniority lists in a 50:25:25 ratio. After reviewing extensive submissions from States, High Courts, and stakeholders, the Supreme Court traced the evolution of judicial service reforms across all AIJA judgments, emphasising the need for uniformity and the High Courts’ supervisory role under Articles 233–235. The Court held that prior service in the junior or senior division cannot justify preferential treatment within the HJS, as entrants lose their “birthmarks” and must be treated as equals. It reaffirmed established service jurisprudence prohibiting classification based solely on recruitment source, criticised reliance on inconsistent State-wise data, and reiterated that career aspirations cannot dictate seniority rules. The Court then crafted a unified 4-point roster, clarified its annual application, addressed scenarios of recruitment delay, and directed States to amend their service rules accordingly.

Decision: The Supreme Court disposed of the interlocutory application while declining all proposals seeking preferential weightage for Promotees or LDCE officers. It mandated that all States and Union Territories amend their HJS service rules within three months to incorporate a uniform annual 4-point roster (2 RPs : 1 LDCE : 1 DR) for seniority fixation, subject to limited exceptions where recruitment of a particular year concludes in the next year without overlapping appointments. The Court clarified that no existing seniority lists will be reopened and that all future determinations must conform to these mandatory guidelines. It affirmed that advancement to Selection Grade and Super Time Scale must be based solely on merit-cum-seniority within the HJS and not on earlier service in lower judicial ranks. All related applications were accordingly disposed of.