Supreme Court Rules That “Suitability for Promotion Under 65% Quota Cannot Be Overridden by Merit List Placement” – Notional Promotion and Seniority Benefits Directed Without Back Wages
Rawlaw
Supreme Court Rules That "Suitability for Promotion Under 65% Quota Cannot Be Overridden by Merit List Placement" – Notional Promotion and Seniority Benefits Directed Without Back Wages
The Court held that the appellants, who had qualified the suitability test, could not be denied promotion solely due to their lower ranking in the merit list.
Directed that the appellants be granted notional promotion effective from the date their peers were promoted (per the notification dated May 30, 2019).
The appellants were awarded consequential service benefits, including seniority, increments, and notional pay fixation. However, back wages were denied.
2. Facts:
The appellants were judicial officers in the State of Jharkhand.
Appellant No. 1 was promoted to Civil Judge (Senior Division) in 2014.
Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were promoted to Civil Judge (Senior Division) in 2016.
A notification dated May 30, 2019, promoted certain private respondents to District Judge posts in the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service.
The appellants, who participated in the selection process and qualified the suitability test, were excluded from promotion due to lower scores compared to the respondents.
The appellants secured more than the minimum qualifying marks (40 marks) in the suitability test:
Appellant No. 1: 50 marks
Appellant No. 2: 50 marks
Appellant No. 3: 43 marks
The High Court dismissed their writ petition, holding that the promotion was based on a merit list, and their scores were insufficient for inclusion.
3. Issues:
Whether the High Court erred in denying promotion to the appellants despite their qualifying the suitability test.
Whether promotions under the 65% quota should be based solely on suitability or comparative merit within a merit list.
Whether the appellants were entitled to promotion and benefits from the same date as the promoted officers.
4. Petitioner’s Arguments:
The appellants contended that the High Court’s reliance on a merit list for the 65% promotional quota was misplaced.
Cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta v. High Court of Gujarat, where it was held that promotions under the 65% quota should be based on individual suitability and not comparative merit.
Argued that since they had cleared the suitability test, their exclusion violated the statutory rules and judicial principles.
5. Respondent’s Arguments:
The respondents justified the promotion process, asserting that the merit list was prepared in accordance with the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Services Rules, 2001.
They argued that higher scores in the suitability test warranted promotion and that the appellants’ lower scores disqualified them.
6. Analysis of the Law:
The Supreme Court analyzed the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Services Rules, 2001, particularly Rules 4 and 5:
Rule 4: Appointment to the service can be made through direct recruitment, promotion based on merit-cum-seniority, and passing a suitability test.
Rule 5: Specifies quotas:
65% promotion based on merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test.
10% promotion by a competitive examination.
25% through direct recruitment.
Promotions under the 65% quota are not competitive but depend on meeting the suitability criteria (minimum marks of 40).
7. Precedent Analysis:
The Court extensively relied on Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta v. High Court of Gujarat (2024), which clarified:
Promotions under the 65% quota are based on suitability, not comparative merit.
Once a candidate qualifies the suitability test, they cannot be denied promotion based on a merit list.
A comparative merit list for the 65% quota would blur the distinction between merit-based (10%) and suitability-based (65%) promotions.
Each candidate’s suitability must be assessed individually.
8. Court’s Reasoning:
The Supreme Court emphasized that:
The 65% promotional quota is meant to assess a candidate’s suitability, not competitive merit.
The High Court’s reliance on a merit list for suitability-based promotions contradicted established judicial principles and statutory rules.
It noted that the appellants were wrongly excluded from promotion despite clearing the suitability test and being eligible under the rules.
9. Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition.
Directed:
Notional promotion for the appellants from the date of their peers’ promotion (May 30, 2019).
Consequential service benefits such as seniority, increments, and notional pay fixation.
Denial of back wages, citing that the appellants had not performed the higher post’s duties during the intervening period.
10. Implications:
The judgment reinforces the principle that suitability-based promotions must adhere strictly to statutory rules and judicial precedents.
It draws a clear distinction between suitability-based and merit-based promotions, ensuring fairness in judicial service appointments.
Sets a precedent for promotions in other states and judicial services, emphasizing the importance of adhering to non-comparative suitability criteria.
