ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS on 19 April 2022

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2022] 5 S.C.R.

A

ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS

v.

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

(I.A No. 89454 of 2021)

B

In

(Writ Petition (C) No.1022 of 1989)

APRIL 19, 2022

[L. NAGESWARA RAO, B. R GAVAI, ANDCANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]

Judiciary – Delhi Higher Judicial service – Appointment – Inorder dated 21 March 2002 by Supreme Court, it was held that theratio of 75% appointment by promotion and 25% by directrecruitment to the Higher Judicial Service is to be maintained –DTwo methods are to be adopted for appointment by promotion, 50%of the total posts are to be filled by promotion on the basis of principleof merit-cum-seniority and remaining 25% on the basis of meritthrough Limited departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) forwhich qualifying service as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) shouldnot be less than 5 years – In order dated 20 April 2010 by SupremeECourt, it was held that there is difficulty in finding candidate forLDCE for the 25% post reserved, hence, it is to be reduced to 10%– Interlocutory Applications (I.A) were filed by two judicial officersin the cadre of Delhi judicial services for modifications of ordersdated 21.03.2002 and 20.04.2010 passed by Supreme Court andFseeking permission to participate in LDCE for promotion to DelhiHigher Judicial service (DHJS) – Another I.A was filed by HighCourt of Delhi for reducing the minimum qualifying service to 7years from 10 years for promotion to the DHJS under 25 % quotaof LDCE – Held: Purpose for providing the channel of promotionthrough LDCE was to provide an incentive to the officers to improveGand to compete with each other so as to excel and get quickerpromotion – Nature of work to be performed by the Civil judge(Junior division) and Civil Judge (Senior division) is the same –Except for the difference in pay scale, there is no difference withregard to powers and duties by the said judges – Therefore, 10% ofHthe cadre strength of District Judges be filled up by LDCE with ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS v. UNION OFINDIA AND OTHERS

those candidates who have qualified service of 7 years [(5 years asCivil Judge(Jr. Division) and 2 years as Civil Judge(Sr. Division)or 10 years as Civil judge(Jr. Division)] in regard to the promotionon the basis of merit through LDCE.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: I.A. No.89454 of 2021in Writ Petition (C) no.1022 of 1989.

(UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)

With

I.A. Nos.89450 and 88976 of 2021, I.A. No.249 of 2009, I.A.No.44132 of 2022 in I.A. No.89450 of 2021 in Writ Petition (C) no.1022of 1989.

K. M. Nataraj, ASG, Vikas Mahajan, Tapesh Kumar Singh, AAGs,Siddharth Bhatnagar, (Amicus Curiae), Wasim Qadri, A. D. N. Rao, P.N. Ravindran, Jaideep Gupta, Dr. Manish Singhvi, P. S. Patwalia, Sr.Advs., Ankit Yadav, Ms. Pracheta Kar, Aditya Sidhra, Nadeem Afroz,T. A. Khan, Nalin Kohli, B. K. Satija, Sharath Nambiar, Ms. Neela KedarGokhale, Raj Bahadur Yadav, Ms. Kavita Jha, Aditeya Bali, Sachin Patil,Rahul Chitnis, Aaditya A. Pande, Geo Joseph, Ms. Shwetal Shepal,Akhilesh Kumar Pandey, Mrs. Amita Gupta, Rakesh Dahiya, A.Venayagam Balan, Abhijit Sengupta, Pravir Kumar Jain, Ms. A.Subhashini, M. Shoeb Alam, Shibashish Misra, Karan Bharihoke, AjayKumar, M. A. Chinnasamy, Satish Kumar, T. V. Ratnam, Apoorv Kurup,Mohit Prasad, Ms. Nidhi Mittal, Ojaswa Pathak, Sibo Sankar Mishra,Ms. G. Indira, Anandh Kannan N., Gopal Jha, Nishant Verma, ShreyashBhardwaj, Ms. Mamta Shrivastava, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, KrishnanandPandeya, Sanjay Sharawat, Anil Nag, Romy Chacko, R. N. Keswani,Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Guntur Prabhakar, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy,Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Uday B. Dube, Kaustubh Dube, PravirChoudhary, V. K. Sidharthan, Raj Kumar Mehta, Anil Shrivastav, GopalSingh, Rakesh K. Sharma, Abhisth Kumar, Mrs. V. D. Khanna, SanjayJain, Pradeep Misra, Prashant Kumar, G. Prakash, Ashok Kumar Singh,Ms. Pragya Singh, Ms. Akshay Singh, Shantwanu Singh, P. V. Dinesh,T. G. Narayanan Nair, Ms. Priya Balakrishnan, Ratan Kumar Choudhuri,P. Parmeswaran, Radha Shyam Jena, Gopal Balwant Sathe, Mrs.Revathy Raghavan, P. V. Yogeswaran, T. L. Garg, V. N. Raghupathy, P.K. Jain, Mrs. Anjani Aiyagari, Sunil Fernandes, Mrs. Bina Gupta, JitendraMohan Sharma, T. Mahipal, Shrish Kumar Misra, Kamal Mohan Gupta, A

B

C

DEF

G

H

A

B

C

DEF

G

H

AParijat Sinha, Kishan Datta, Ms. A. Sumathi, B. D. Sharma, HareshRaichura, Sameer Parekh, Kshatrashal Raj, Ms. Tanya Chaudhry, Ms.Pratyusha Priyadarshini, Ms. Nitika Pandey, M/s Parekh & Co., S. R.Setia, Ms. Meera Mathur, Naresh K. Sharma, Ms. N. Annapoorani,Manish K. Bishnoi, B. V. Balaram Das, Ajit Pudussery, Ms. S. Janani,Kanhaiya Priyadarshi, S. K. Bhattacharya, Praveen Swarup, Ms. PayalBSwarup, Syed Jafar Husain, M/s Gagrat And Co., Mukesh K. Giri, T. V.George, Ashok Mathur, Ranjan Mukherjee, Rajesh Srivastava, SunilKumar Jain, Ms. Rashika Swarup, Ms. Kumud Lata Das, M. Veerappa,Chander Shekhar Ashri, Alok Kumar, Mrs. Anil Katiyar, K. R.Sasiprabhu, Dr. Sushil Balwada, Surya Kant, Rajiv Mehta, K. RamCKumar, Dr. J. P. Dhanda, T. Harish Kumar, Arun K. Sinha, M/s CorporateLaw Group, R. Sathish, P. I. Jose, Prashant K. Sharma, Jenis Francis,Anupam Mishra, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Abhinav Mukerji, Ms. BihuSharma, Akshay C. Shrivastava, Ms. Prathistha Vij, Sanjai KumarPathak, Mrs. Shashi Pathak, Kunal Chatterji, Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee,Rohit Bansal, Amrish Kumar, Ms. Deepanwita Priyanka, Ms. AswathiDM. K., Arpit Prakash, D. K. Devesh, Sumeer Sodhi, Ms. Shreya Nair, P.Mohith Rao, S. Udaya Kumar Sagar, T. N. Rama Rao, Hitesh KumarSharma, S. K. Rajora, Akhileshwar Jha, T. L. V. Ramachari, Ajay Bansal,Gaurav Yadava, Kuldeep Singh, Ms. Veena Bansal, Suhaan Mukerji,Aditya Prakash, Nikhil Parikshith, Vishal Prasad, Abhishek Manchanda,ESayandeep Pahari, Tanmay Sinha, M/s PLR Chambers And Co.,Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, Ms. Anupama Ngangom, Karun Sharma,Sharan Thakur, Mahesh Thakur, Siddharth Thakur, Ms. Vipasha Singh,Ajay Kanojiya, Bishwendra Singh, Ashutosh Dubey, Vivek Mahajan,Vidit Anand, Vinod Sharma, Surinder Singh Manak, Parijat Som, ArunSingh, Salik Ram, Nishe Rajen Shonker, Ms. Anu K. Joy, Alim Anvar,FSatish Pandey, G. N. Reddy, Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Avijit ManiTripathi, T. K. Nayak, P. S. Negi, Daniel Lyngdoh, Braj Kishore Mishra,Raghvendra Kumar, Anand Kumar Dubey, Nishant Verma, Rajiv KumarSinha, Ms. Simanta Kumar, Sunil Saraogi, Sandeep Kumar Sen, NarendraKumar, Siddhesh Kotwal, Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Ms. Manya Hasija, AkashGSingh, Nirnimesh Dube, Shuvodeep Roy, Kabir Shankar Bose, IshaanBorthakur, Ms. Taruna Ardhendumauli Prasad, Kumar Anurag Singh,Anando Mukherjee Sen, Shwetank Singh, Beenu Sharma, Som RajChoudhury, Ms. Shrutee Aradhana, Ms. Mrinal Elker Mazumdar, Ms.Indira Bhakar, Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Ms. Nupur Sharma, ShobhitDwivedi, Sanjeev Kumar Mahara, Ms. Astha Sharma, Chirag M. Shroff,H

Amandeep Mehta, Ankit Mishra, Sunny Choudhary, Purushottam SharmaTripathi, Mukesh Kumar Singh, Ravi Chandra Prakash, Sahil Tagotra,S. P. Mukherjee, Rakesh Talukdar, Adarsh Upadhyay, Chanchal KumarGanguli, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Sukant Vikram, Aditya Pratap Singh,Aditya Narayan Das, Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, P. S. Sudheer, Malak ManishBhatt, Ms. K. Enatoli Sema, Amit Kumar Singh, Ms. Chubalemla Chang,Aravindh S., Avneesh Arputham, M/s Arputham Aruna And Co., SiddharthSangal, Ms. Vaidehi Kothari, Arjun Garg, Aakash Nandolia, Ms. SagunSrivastava, Sandeep Sudhakar Deshmukh, Advs. for the appearingparties.

The Order of the Court was passed by

B. R. GAVAI, J.

The Order of the Court was passed by

B. R. GAVAI, J.

1. I.A. No. 89454 of 2021 has been filed by two judicial officersin the cadre of Delhi Judicial Service (hereinafter referred to as “DJS”)namely Ms. Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan and Dr. Shirish Aggarwal, formodification of the orders dated 21[st] March 2002[1] and 20[th] April 2010[2]passed by this Court in the present writ petition. I.A. No. 89450 of 2021has been filed by the same judicial officers seeking permission toparticipate in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination(hereinafter referred to as “LDCE”) initiated by the High Court of Delhithrough its letter No. 38-49/Exam.Cell/DHJSCL Exam/2021 dated 15[th]July 2021, for promotion to the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (hereinafterreferred to as “DHJS”) District Judge Cadre and to consider thecandidature of the judicial officers-applicants on merits, subject to theoutcome of the application for modification. I.A. No. 44132 of 2022 inI.A. No.89450 of 2021 has been filed by the same judicial officers prayingfor a direction to the High Court of Delhi to identify two seats of LDCEquota of DHJS from the roster under Rule 7(2) of the Delhi HigherJudicial Service Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as the “said Rules”)and to reserve them for the judicial officers-applicants. I.A. No.88976of 2021 has also been filed by the same judicial officers praying for theirimpleadment as co-petitioners in the present writ petition.

2. I.A. No.249 of 2009 has been filed by the High Court of Delhipraying for reducing the minimum qualifying service to 7 years from 10years for promotion to the DHJS under 25% quota of LDCE.

1 (2002) 4 SCC 247

2 (2010) 15 SCC 170

AB

C

D

EF

G

H

A

3. We have heard Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned Senior Counselappearing on behalf of the judicial officers-applicants, Shri A.D.N. Rao,learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the High Court of Delhiand Shri Siddharth Bhatnagar, learned Senior Counsel appearing asamicus curiae.

B4. The present writ petition pertains to the working conditions ofthe members of subordinate judiciary throughout the country. This Courthas issued various directions from time to time. Pursuant to the directionsissued by this Court, the then Ministry of Law, Justice and CompanyAffairs (Department of Justice), Government of India constituted theFirst National Judicial Pay Commission (also known as “ShettyCCommission”) under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice K.J. Shetty videResolution dated 21[st] March 1996. The Shetty Commission, after duedeliberation, submitted its report on 11[th] November 1991. Therecommendations of the Shetty Commission came to be considered bythis Court in its order dated 21[st] March 2002, passed in the present writDpetition. It will be apposite to refer to the observations made by thisCourt in paragraph (27) of the said order, which read thus:

“27. Another question which falls for consideration is the methodof recruitment to the posts in the cadre of Higher Judicial Servicei.e. District Judges and Additional District Judges. At the presentEmoment, there are two sources for recruitment to the HigherJudicial Service, namely, by promotion from amongst the membersof the Subordinate Judicial Service and by direct recruitment. Thesubordinate judiciary is the foundation of the edifice of the judicialsystem. It is, therefore, imperative, like any other foundation, thatit should become as strong as possible. The weight on the judicialFsystem essentially rests on the subordinate judiciary. While wehave accepted the recommendation of the Shetty Commissionwhich will result in the increase in the pay scales of the subordinatejudiciary, it is at the same time necessary that the judicial officers,hard-working as they are, become more efficient. It is imperativeGthat they keep abreast of knowledge of law and the latestpronouncements, and it is for this reason that the ShettyCommission has recommended the establishment of a JudicialAcademy, which is very necessary. At the same time, we are ofthe opinion that there has to be certain minimum standard,objectively adjudged, for officers who are to enter the Higher E

G

H

ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS v. UNION OFINDIA AND OTHERS [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

Judicial Service as Additional District Judges and District Judges.While we agree with the Shetty Commission that the recruitmentto the Higher Judicial Service i.e. the District Judge cadre fromamongst the advocates should be 25 per cent and the process ofrecruitment is to be by a competitive examination, both writtenand viva voce, we are of the opinion that there should be anobjective method of testing the suitability of the subordinate judicialofficers for promotion to the Higher Judicial Service. Furthermore,there should also be an incentive amongst the relatively junior andother officers to improve and to compete with each other so as toexcel and get quicker promotion. In this way, we expect that thecalibre of the members of the Higher Judicial Service will furtherimprove. In order to achieve this, while the ratio of 75 per centappointment by promotion and 25 per cent by direct recruitmentto the Higher Judicial Service is maintained, we are, however, ofthe opinion that there should be two methods as far as appointmentby promotion is concerned : 50 per cent of the total posts in theHigher Judicial Service must be filled by promotion on the basisof principle of merit-cum-seniority. For this purpose, the HighCourts should devise and evolve a test in order to ascertain andexamine the legal knowledge of those candidates and to assesstheir continued efficiency with adequate knowledge of case-law.The remaining 25 per cent of the posts in the service shall befilled by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through the limiteddepartmental competitive examination for which the qualifyingservice as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) should be not less thanfive years. The High Courts will have to frame a rule in thisregard.”

5. A perusal thereof would reveal that this Court has observedthat there should also be an incentive amongst the relatively junior andother officers to improve and to compete with each other so as to exceland get quicker promotion. This Court was of the view that in this way,the calibre of the members of the Higher Judicial Service will furtherimprove. This Court, therefore, observed that to achieve the same, whilethe ratio of 75% appointment by promotion and 25% by direct recruitmentto the Higher Judicial Service is maintained, there should be two methodsfor appointment by promotion. 50% of the total posts in the Higher JudicialService must be filled by promotion on the basis of principle of merit-cum-seniority and the remaining 25% of posts in the service should be AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Afilled by promotion strictly on the basis of merit through LDCE for whichthe qualifying service as a Civil Judge (Senior Division) should be notless than 5 years. This Court, accordingly, issued the following directions:

“28. As a result of the aforesaid, to recapitulate, we direct thatrecruitment to the Higher Judicial Service i.e. the cadre of DistrictBJudges will be:

(1) (a) 50 per cent by promotion from amongst the CivilJudges (Senior Division) on the basis of principle of merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test; (b) 25 per cent by promotion strictly on the basis of meritCthrough limited competitive examination of Civil Judges(Senior Division) having not less than five years’ qualifyingservice; and

(c) 25 per cent of the posts shall be filled by directDrecruitment from amongst the eligible advocates on the basisof the written and viva voce test conducted by respectiveHigh Courts.

(2) Appropriate rules shall be framed as above by the HighCourts as early as possible.”

E6. In pursuance of the directions of this Court, the High Court ofDelhi amended Rule 7 of the said Rules vide Delhi Higher Judicial Service(Amendment) Rules, 2008 dated 22[nd] October 2008, which reads thus:

“7. Regular recruitment.- (1) Recruitment to the posts in the cadreof District Judge at Entry Level shall be as under:-F

(a) 50 percent by promotion from amongst the Civil Judges (SeniorDivision), having a minimum ten years service in the cadre ofDelhi Judicial Service, on the basis of principle of merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test; G(b) 25 percent by promotion strictly on the basis of merit throughlimited competitive examination of Civil Judges (Senior Division)having not less than five years qualifying service; and

(c) 25 percent of the posts shall be filled by direct recruitmentfrom amongst the persons eligible as per rule 7C on the basis ofHthe written and viva voce test, conducted by the High Court.

ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS v. UNION OFINDIA AND OTHERS [B. R. GAVAI, J.]

(2) The first and second posts will go to category (a) (by promotionon the basis of seniority-cum-suitability), the third post will go tocategory (c) (direct recruitment from the Bar), and the fourthpost will go to category (b) (by limited competitive examination)under this rule, and so on.

7A. ……

7B. Selection for promotion by holding limited competitiveexamination:- The High Court shall hold a limited writtencompetitive examination for promotion of member of the DelhiJudicial Service as per clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of rule 7 in thefollowing manner:-

(i) Written Examination - 600 marks

(ii) Assessment of Record -150 marks

(iii) Viva voce - 250 marks

Provided that the High Court may, in addition to the abovecompetitive examination, take into consideration any of thematerials as prescribed in rule 7A above.

Provided further that any officer having grading as ‘C’ (Integritydoubtful) in any year, shall not be eligible to appear in the limitedcompetitive examination.

7C. ……..”

7. In the meantime, the issue with regard to eligibility requirementfor recruitment to the posts in DHJS under 25% quota by promotion onthe basis of merit through LDCE came up for discussion before the FullCourt of the High Court of Delhi in its meeting dated 5[th] September2008. In the said meeting, it was considered that a Civil Judge (JuniorDivision) is not eligible to become Civil Judge (Senior Division) until hecompletes 5 years qualifying service. It was further discussed that underthe said Rules, a Civil Judge (Junior Division) would be required to havea minimum of 10 years qualifying service to be considered even for the25% quota through LDCE. The Full Court of the High Court of Delhiwas of the view that in order to make the quota of LDCE an effectivescheme of promotion for meritorious officers, it was appropriate that theeligibility requirement of 10 years be reduced to 7 years [(5 years as

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ACivil Judge (Junior Division) and 2 years as Civil Judge (Senior Division)under the 25% quota]. The High Court of Delhi was of the view that thesame would also be in conformity with Article 233 (2) of the Constitutionof India and the eligibility conditions for direct recruitment from the Bar.In this background, I.A. No. 249 of 2009 came to be filed by the HighCourt of Delhi.B

8. Various I.As. were filed in the present writ petition. Some ofthe I.As. came to be decided by this Court vide order dated 20[th] April2010. It will be apposite to refer to the following paragraphs of the saidorder:C“5. In some of the States sufficient number of candidates are notavailable for being promoted under this particular category as aCivil Judge (Senior Division) in the normal course gets promotionbefore the completion of period of 5 years. As 25% quota isprescribed, a large number of vacancies remained unfilled andthat is not good for the judicial administration in that State.D

6. Having regard to various strategies available, we are of theconsidered view that suitable amendment is to be made for this25% quota of limited departmental competitive examination. Weare also of the view, with the past experience, that it is desirablethat 25% quota be reduced to 10%. We feel so as the requiredEresult, which was sought to be achieved by this process could notbe achieved, thus it calls for modification.

7. Thus, we direct that henceforth only 10% of the cadre strengthof District Judges be filled up by limited departmental competitiveFexamination with those candidates who have qualified service offive years as Civil Judge (Senior Division). Every year vacanciesare to be ascertained and the process of selection shall be takencare of by the High Courts. If any of the post is not filled up under10% quota, the same shall be filled up by regular promotion. Insome of the High Courts, process of selection of these 25% quotaGby holding limited departmental competitive examination is inprogress, such process can be continued and the unfilled seats, ifmeritorious candidates are available, should be filled up. But if forsome reason the seats are not filled up, they may be filled up byregular promotion and apply the usual mode of promotion process.Thus we pass the following order.H

8. Hereinafter, there shall be 25% of seats for direct recruitmentfrom the Bar, 65% of seats are to be filled up by regular promotionof Civil Judge (Senior Division) and 10% seats are to be filled upby limited departmental competitive examination. If candidatesare not available for 10% seats, or are not able to qualify in theexamination then vacant posts are to be filled up by regularpromotion in accordance with the Service Rules applicable.

9. All the High Courts are hereby directed to take steps to seethat existing Service Rules be amended positively with effect from1-1-2011. If the Rules are not suitably amended, this order shallprevail and further recruitment from 1-1-2011 shall be continuedaccordingly as directed by us. The time schedule prescribed inthe order dated 4-1-2007 (in Malik Mazhar Sultan case [MalikMazhar Sultan (3) v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2008)17 SCC 703 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 942] ) shall be strictly adheredto for the purpose of selection. All the vacancies are to be filledup in that particular year and there shall not be any carry forwardof the unfilled posts.”

9. It could thus be seen that this Court found that it was difficult tofind candidates for LDCE for the 25% posts reserved for the saidcategory and in many High Courts, the said posts remained unfilled.This Court, therefore, reduced the said 25% quota to 10%.

10. I.A. No. 249 of 2009 filed by the High Court of Delhi hasbeen pending for more than a decade. In the meantime, two judicialofficers-applicants herein have filed the aforesaid I.As. The first onebeing for modification of the orders of this Court dated 21[st] March 2002and 20[th] April 2010.

11. It is not in dispute that in the High Court of Delhi, the nature ofwork to be performed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) and CivilJudge (Senior Division) is the same. This is a peculiar situation prevailingin the High Court of Delhi where except for the difference in Pay Scale,there is no difference with regard to the powers to be exercised and theduties to be discharged by the said judges. It is also not in dispute thatthe present ratio of Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Civil Judge (SeniorDivision) is 80 : 20. The High Court of Delhi has already moved thePrincipal Secretary (LJ & LA), Government of NCT of Delhi for increaseof quota of Civil Judge (Senior Division) to 25% from 20% i.e. an increase AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Afrom 96 Civil Judges (Senior Division) to 121 Civil Judges (Senior Division),out of a total strength of 482.

12. It is the grievance of the said two judicial officers-applicantsthat on account of this peculiar situation, for 10% quota under the LDCE,there are no candidates available for promotion through merit. It is theirBfurther grievance that in ordinary course, a person would get promotedeven to DHJS in 10 years. In this premise, the judicial officers-applicantspray for modification of the orders dated 21[st] March 2002 and 20[th] April2010 passed by this Court in the present writ petition so as to do awaywith the requirement of 5 years qualifying service as Civil Judge (SeniorDivision) and modify the same with the requirement of 10 years totalCqualifying service as Civil Judge.

13. This position is not disputed by the High Court of Delhi. Onthe contrary, it is the prayer made by the High Court of Delhi that theorder be modified and the requirement of 10 years minimum qualifyingservice be reduced to 7 years minimum qualifying service [(5 years asDCivil Judge (Junior Division) and 2 years as Civil Judge (Senior Division)under the 25% quota].

14. The very purpose for providing the channel of promotionthrough LDCE was to provide an incentive to the officers amongst therelatively junior officers to improve and to compete with each other soEas to excel and get quicker promotion. In the peculiar situation prevailingin the High Court of Delhi, the very purpose is frustrated. We are,therefore, of the considered view that in the peculiar facts andcircumstances, both I.A. No.249 of 2009 and I.A. No.89454 of 2021deserve to be allowed.F

15. Shri Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of theHigh Court of Delhi has fairly stated that the High Court of Delhi, on itsown, has reserved two seats for the present judicial officers-applicantsso that their claims are not defeated by passage of time or by delay inholding of the examination.G16. In view of the submission made by Shri Rao, no orders arenecessary to be passed in I.A. No. 89450 of 2021, I.A. No.44132 of2022 in I.A. No. 89450 of 2021 and I.A. No.88976 of 2021.

17. In the result, I.A. No. 89454 of 2021 filed by the judicial officers-applicants andI.A. No. 249 of 2009 filed by the High Court of Delhi areHallowed in the following terms:

(i) Paragraph 28 (1) (b) of the order dated 21[st] March 2002passed by this Court, is modified and substituted as under:

“25% by promotion strictly on the basis of merit throughLDCE of Civil Judges having 7 years qualifying service[(5 years as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and 2 yearsas Civil Judge (Senior Division) or 10 years qualifyingservice as Civil Judge(Junior Division).”

(ii) Similarly, in the order dated 20[th] April 2010 passed by thisCourt, the direction in paragraph (7), i.e., “Thus, we directthat henceforth only 10% of the cadre strength ofDistrict Judges be filled up by limited departmentalcompetitive examination with those candidates who havequalified service of five years as Civil Judge (SeniorDivision)”, is modified and substituted as under:

“Thus, we direct that henceforth only 10% of the cadrestrength of District Judges be filled up by LimitedDepartmental Competitive Examination with thosecandidates who have qualified service of 7 years [(5years as Civil Judge (Junior Division) and 2 years asCivil Judge (Senior Division) or 10 years qualifyingservice as Civil Judge(Junior Division).”

18. It is needless to state that since the aforesaid modificationsare being directed in the peculiar facts and circumstances pertaining tothe DHJS, the said modifications shall apply only insofar as the DHJS isconcerned.

Devika Gujral(Assisted by : Shevali Monga, LCRA)

I.As. allowed.

A

BC

D

E

F

G

H