/2022 INSC 0299/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
I.A. NO. 89454 OF 2021 
IN
WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 1022 OF 1989
ALL INDIA JUDGES ASSOCIATION
AND OTHERS          ...PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ...RESPONDENT(S)
AND
IN THE MATTER OF 
MS. SHEETAL CHAUDHARY PRADHAN
AND ANOTHER      …APPLICANT(S)
WITH
I.A. NO. 89450 OF 2021 
I.A. NO. 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. 1022 OF 1989
O R D E R
B.R. GAVAI, J.
1. I.A.   No.   89454   of   2021   has   been   filed   by   two   judicial
officers   in   the   cadre   of   Delhi   Judicial   Service   (hereinafter
1

referred to as “DJS”) namely Ms. Sheetal Chaudhary Pradhan
and   Dr.   Shirish   Aggarwal,   for   modification   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   2021
has   been   filed   by   the   same   judicial   officers   seeking
permission   to   participate   in   the   Limited   Departmental
Competitive   Examination   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   “LDCE”)
initiated by the High Court of Delhi through its letter No. 38­
49/Exam.Cell/DHJSCL   Exam/2021   dated   15 th
  July   2021,
for   promotion   to   the   Delhi   Higher   Judicial   Service
(hereinafter  referred to  as “DHJS”)  District Judge Cadre and
to consider the candidature of the judicial officers­applicants
on   merits,   subject   to   the   outcome   of   the   application   for
modification.     I.A.   No.   44132   of   2022   in   I.A.   No.89450   of
2021 has been filed by the same judicial officers praying for a
direction   to   the   High   Court   of   Delhi   to   identify   two   seats   of
LDCE  quota  of  DHJS  from   the  roster  under   Rule 7(2)  of  the
Delhi   Higher   Judicial   Service   Rules,   1970   (hereinafter
referred   to   as   the   “said   Rules”)   and   to   reserve   them   for   the
judicial   officers­applicants.     I.A.   No.88976   of   2021   has   also
1   (2002) 4 SCC 247
2   (2010) 15 SCC 170
2

been   filed   by   the   same   judicial   officers   praying   for   their
impleadment as co­petitioners in the present writ petition.  
2. I.A. No.249 of 2009 has been filed by the High Court of
Delhi praying for reducing the minimum qualifying service to
7 years from 10 years for promotion to the DHJS under 25%
quota of LDCE.
3. We   have   heard   Shri   P.S.   Patwalia,   learned   Senior
Counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   judicial   officers­
applicants,   Shri   A.D.N.   Rao,   learned   Senior   Counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   High   Court   of   Delhi   and   Shri
Siddharth   Bhatnagar,   learned   Senior   Counsel   appearing   as
amicus curiae.
4. The   present   writ   petition   pertains   to   the   working
conditions   of   the   members   of   subordinate   judiciary
throughout   the   country.     This   Court   has   issued   various
directions   from   time   to   time.     Pursuant   to   the   directions
issued   by   this   Court,   the   then   Ministry   of   Law,   Justice   and
Company   Affairs   (Department   of   Justice),   Government   of
India constituted the First National Judicial Pay Commission
(also   known   as   “Shetty   Commission”)   under   the
3

Chairmanship   of   Mr.   Justice   K.J.   Shetty   vide   Resolution
dated   21 st
  March   1996.     The   Shetty   Commission,   after   due
deliberation,   submitted   its   report   on   11 th
  November   1991.
The recommendations of  the  Shetty   Commission  came to be
considered by this Court in its order dated 21 st
  March 2002,
passed in the present writ petition.  It will be apposite to refer
to  the  observations   made  by  this  Court  in  paragraph   (27)  of
the said order, which read thus:
“ 27.   Another   question   which   falls   for   consideration
is   the   method   of   recruitment   to   the   posts   in   the
cadre of Higher  Judicial Service i.e. District Judges
and   Additional   District   Judges.   At   the   present
moment,   there   are   two   sources   for   recruitment   to
the   Higher   Judicial   Service,   namely,   by   promotion
from   amongst   the   members   of   the   Subordinate
Judicial   Service   and   by   direct   recruitment.   The
subordinate judiciary is the foundation of the edifice
of   the   judicial   system.   It   is,   therefore,   imperative,
like any other foundation, that it should become as
strong   as   possible.   The   weight   on   the   judicial
system   essentially   rests   on   the   subordinate
judiciary.   While   we   have   accepted   the
recommendation   of   the   Shetty   Commission   which
will   result   in   the   increase   in   the   pay   scales   of   the
subordinate   judiciary,   it   is   at   the   same   time
necessary that the judicial officers, hard­working as
they are, become more efficient. It is imperative that
they keep abreast of knowledge of law and the latest
pronouncements,   and   it   is   for   this   reason   that   the
Shetty   Commission   has   recommended   the
establishment  of  a Judicial  Academy,  which  is very
necessary.   At   the   same   time,   we   are   of   the   opinion
that   there   has   to   be   certain   minimum   standard,
4

objectively   adjudged,   for   officers   who   are   to   enter
the   Higher   Judicial   Service   as   Additional   District
Judges and District Judges. While we agree with the
Shetty   Commission   that   the   recruitment   to   the
Higher Judicial Service i.e. the District Judge cadre
from   amongst   the   advocates   should   be   25   per   cent
and   the   process   of   recruitment   is   to   be   by   a
competitive   examination,   both   written   and   viva
voce, we are of the opinion that there should be an
objective   method   of   testing   the   suitability   of   the
subordinate   judicial   officers   for   promotion   to   the
Higher   Judicial   Service.   Furthermore,   there   should
also   be   an   incentive   amongst   the   relatively   junior
and   other   officers   to   improve   and   to   compete   with
each other so as to excel and get quicker promotion.
In   this   way,   we   expect   that   the   calibre   of   the
members  of   the   Higher   Judicial   Service  will   further
improve.   In  order  to   achieve   this,   while   the   ratio  of
75   per   cent   appointment   by   promotion   and   25   per
cent   by   direct   recruitment   to   the   Higher   Judicial
Service   is   maintained,   we   are,   however,   of   the
opinion that there should be two methods as far as
appointment   by   promotion   is   concerned   :   50   per
cent of the total posts in the Higher Judicial Service
must be filled by promotion on the basis of principle
of   merit­cum­seniority.   For   this   purpose,   the   High
Courts   should   devise   and   evolve   a   test   in   order   to
ascertain and examine the legal knowledge of those
candidates   and   to   assess   their   continued   efficiency
with   adequate   knowledge   of   case­law.   The
remaining   25   per   cent   of   the   posts   in   the   service
shall   be   filled   by   promotion   strictly   on   the   basis   of
merit   through   the   limited   departmental   competitive
examination   for   which   the   qualifying   service   as   a
Civil Judge (Senior Division) should be not less than
five years. The High Courts will have to frame a rule
in this regard.”
5

5. A   perusal   thereof   would   reveal   that   this   Court   has
observed that there should also be an incentive amongst the
relatively junior and other officers to improve and to compete
with   each   other   so   as   to   excel   and   get   quicker   promotion.
This Court was of the view that in this way, the calibre of the
members of the Higher Judicial Service will further improve.
This   Court,   therefore,   observed   that   to   achieve   the   same,
while the ratio of 75% appointment by promotion and 25% by
direct   recruitment   to   the   Higher   Judicial   Service   is
maintained, there should be two methods for appointment by
promotion.     50%   of   the   total   posts   in   the   Higher   Judicial
Service must be filled by promotion on the basis of principle
of merit­cum­seniority and the remaining 25% of posts in the
service should  be filled  by  promotion  strictly  on  the  basis of
merit   through   LDCE   for   which   the   qualifying   service   as   a
Civil Judge (Senior Division) should be not less than 5 years.
This Court, accordingly, issued the following directions:
“ 28.   As a result of the aforesaid, to recapitulate, we
direct   that   recruitment   to   the   Higher   Judicial
Service i.e. the cadre of District Judges will be:
(1)( a )   50   per   cent   by   promotion   from
amongst   the   Civil   Judges   (Senior
Division)   on   the   basis   of   principle   of
6

merit­cum­seniority   and   passing   a
suitability test;
( b )   25   per   cent   by   promotion   strictly   on
the   basis   of   merit   through   limited
competitive   examination   of   Civil   Judges
(Senior Division) having not less than five
years' qualifying service; and
( c ) 25 per cent of the posts shall be filled
by   direct   recruitment   from   amongst   the
eligible   advocates   on   the   basis   of   the
written   and   viva   voce   test   conducted   by
respective High Courts.
(2)   Appropriate   rules   shall   be   framed   as
above   by   the   High   Courts   as   early   as
possible.”
6. In   pursuance   of   the   directions   of   this   Court,   the   High
Court   of   Delhi   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   cadre   of   District   Judge   at   Entry   Level
shall be as under:­ 
(a) 50 percent by promotion from amongst the Civil
Judges   (Senior   Division),   having   a   minimum   ten
years service in  the  cadre of  Delhi Judicial  Service,
on the basis of principle of merit­cum­seniority and
passing a suitability test; 
(b) 25 percent  by   promotion  strictly  on the  basis of
merit   through   limited   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
recruitment   from   amongst   the   persons   eligible   as
7

per rule 7C on the basis of the written and viva voce
test, conducted by the High Court. 
(2) The first and second posts will go to category (a)
(by   promotion   on   the   basis   of   seniority­cum­
suitability),   the   third   post   will   go   to   category   (c)
(direct   recruitment   from   the   Bar),   and   the   fourth
post   will   go   to   category   (b)   (by   limited   competitive
examination) under this rule, and so on. 
7A.   ……
7B.   Selection   for   promotion   by   holding   limited
competitive examination:­ The High Court shall hold
a   limited   written   competitive   examination   for
promotion   of   member   of   the   Delhi   Judicial   Service
as   per   clause   (b)   of   sub­rule   (1)   of   rule   7   in   the
following 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
above   competitive   examination,   take   into
consideration   any   of   the   materials   as   prescribed   in
rule 7A above. 
Provided   further   that   any   officer   having   grading   as
'C'   (Integrity   doubtful)   in   any   year,   shall   not   be
eligible   to   appear   in   the   limited   competitive
examination.
7C. ……..”
7. In   the   meantime,   the   issue   with   regard   to   eligibility
requirement for recruitment to the posts in DHJS under 25%
quota   by   promotion   on   the   basis   of   merit   through   LDCE
8

came   up   for   discussion   before   the   Full   Court   of   the   High
Court   of   Delhi   in   its   meeting   dated   5 th
  September   2008.     In
the said meeting, it was considered that a Civil Judge (Junior
Division)   is   not   eligible   to   become   Civil   Judge   (Senior
Division) until he completes 5 years qualifying service.  It was
further   discussed   that   under   the   said   Rules,   a   Civil   Judge
(Junior Division) would be required to have a minimum of 10
years   qualifying   service   to   be   considered   even   for   the   25%
quota   through   LDCE.     The   Full   Court   of   the   High   Court   of
Delhi   was   of   the   view   that   in   order   to   make   the   quota   of
LDCE   an   effective   scheme   of   promotion   for   meritorious
officers, it was appropriate that the eligibility requirement of
10   years   be   reduced   to   7   years   [(5   years   as   Civil   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   the   same   would   also   be   in   conformity   with   Article
233   (2)   of   the   Constitution   of   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
High Court of Delhi.
9

8. Various   I.As.   were   filed   in   the   present   writ   petition.
Some of the I.As. came to be decided by this Court vide order
dated   20 th
  April   2010.     It   will   be   apposite   to   refer   to   the
following paragraphs of the said order:
“ 5.   In   some   of   the   States   sufficient   number   of
candidates   are   not   available   for   being   promoted
under   this   particular   category   as   a   Civil   Judge
(Senior   Division)   in   the   normal   course   gets
promotion   before   the   completion   of   period   of   5
years.   As   25%   quota   is   prescribed,   a   large   number
of vacancies remained unfilled and that is not good
for the judicial administration in that State.
6.   Having   regard   to   various   strategies   available,   we
are of the considered view that suitable amendment
is   to   be   made   for   this   25%   quota   of   limited
departmental   competitive   examination.   We   are   also
of   the   view,   with   the   past   experience,   that   it   is
desirable   that   25%   quota   be   reduced   to   10%.   We
feel   so   as   the   required   result,   which   was   sought   to
be   achieved   by   this   process   could   not   be   achieved,
thus it calls for modification.
7.   Thus,   we   direct   that   henceforth   only   10%   of   the
cadre   strength   of   District   Judges   be   filled   up   by
limited   departmental   competitive   examination   with
those   candidates   who   have   qualified   service   of   five
years   as   Civil   Judge   (Senior   Division).   Every   year
vacancies   are   to   be   ascertained   and   the   process   of
selection shall be taken care of by the High Courts.
If any of the post is not filled up under 10% quota,
the same shall be filled up by regular promotion. In
some   of   the   High   Courts,   process   of   selection   of
these   25%   quota   by   holding   limited   departmental
competitive   examination   is   in   progress,   such
10

process   can   be   continued   and   the   unfilled   seats,   if
meritorious   candidates   are   available,   should   be
filled   up.   But   if   for   some   reason   the   seats   are   not
filled up, they may be filled up by regular promotion
and   apply   the   usual   mode   of   promotion   process.
Thus we pass the following order.
8.   Hereinafter, there shall be 25% of seats for direct
recruitment   from   the   Bar,   65%   of   seats   are   to   be
filled up by regular promotion of Civil Judge (Senior
Division)   and   10%   seats   are   to   be   filled   up   by
limited   departmental   competitive   examination.   If
candidates   are   not   available   for   10%   seats,   or   are
not   able   to   qualify   in   the   examination   then   vacant
posts   are   to   be   filled   up   by   regular   promotion   in
accordance with the Service Rules applicable.
9.   All   the   High   Courts   are   hereby   directed   to   take
steps to see that existing Service Rules be amended
positively with effect from 1­1­2011. If the Rules are
not   suitably   amended,   this   order   shall   prevail   and
further   recruitment   from   1­1­2011   shall   be
continued   accordingly   as   directed   by   us.   The   time
schedule   prescribed   in   the   order   dated   4­1­2007
(in   Malik   Mazhar   Sultan   case   [ Malik   Mazhar   Sultan
(3)   v.   U.P. Public Service Commission , (2008) 17 SCC
703   :   (2010)   1   SCC   (L&S)   942]   )   shall   be   strictly
adhered   to   for   the   purpose   of   selection.   All   the
vacancies are to  be filled  up in  that  particular  year
and   there   shall   not   be   any   carry   forward   of   the
unfilled posts.”
9. It could thus be seen that this Court found that it was
difficult   to   find   candidates   for   LDCE   for   the   25%   posts
reserved for the said category and in many High Courts, the
11

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 has
been pending for more than a decade.   In the meantime, two
judicial   officers­applicants   herein   have   filed   the   aforesaid
I.As.  The first one being for modification of the orders of this
Court dated 21 st
 March 2002 and 20 th
 April 2010.
11. It is not in dispute that in the High Court of Delhi, the
nature   of   work   to   be   performed   by   the   Civil   Judge   (Junior
Division) and Civil Judge (Senior Division) is the same.   This
is   a   peculiar   situation   prevailing   in   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  the
duties to be discharged by the said judges.   It is also not in
dispute that the present ratio of Civil Judge (Junior Division)
to Civil Judge (Senior Division) is 80 : 20. The High Court of
Delhi   has   already   moved   the   Principal   Secretary   (LJ   &   LA),
Government   of   NCT   of   Delhi   for   increase   of   quota   of   Civil
Judge   (Senior   Division)   to   25%   from   20%   i.e.   an   increase
12

from   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
applicants that on account of this peculiar situation, for 10%
quota under the LDCE, there are no candidates available for
promotion through merit.  It is their further grievance that in
ordinary course, a person would get promoted even to DHJS
in   10   years.     In  this   premise,   the   judicial   officers­applicants
pray   for   modification   of   the   orders   dated   21 st
  March   2002
and 20 th
  April 2010 passed by this Court in the present writ
petition   so   as   to   do   away   with   the   requirement   of   5   years
qualifying service as Civil Judge (Senior Division) and modify
the   same   with   the   requirement   of   10   years   total   qualifying
service as Civil Judge.
13. This position is not disputed by the High Court of Delhi.
On  the  contrary,  it  is the   prayer  made  by   the  High   Court  of
Delhi   that   the   order   be   modified   and   the   requirement   of   10
years   minimum   qualifying   service   be   reduced   to   7   years
minimum   qualifying   service   [(5   years   as   Civil   Judge   (Junior
13

Division)   and   2   years   as   Civil   Judge   (Senior   Division)   under
the 25% quota].
14. The very purpose for providing the channel of promotion
through   LDCE   was   to   provide   an   incentive   to   the   officers
amongst   the   relatively   junior   officers   to   improve   and   to
compete   with   each   other   so   as   to   excel   and   get   quicker
promotion.     In   the   peculiar   situation   prevailing   in   the   High
Court   of   Delhi,   the   very   purpose   is   frustrated.     We   are,
therefore,   of   the   considered   view   that   in   the   peculiar   facts
and   circumstances,   both   I.A.   No.249   of   2009   and   I.A.
No.89454 of 2021 deserve to be allowed.  
15. Shri Rao, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of
the High Court of Delhi has fairly stated that the High Court
of   Delhi,   on   its   own,   has   reserved   two   seats   for   the   present
judicial   officers­applicants   so   that   their   claims   are   not
defeated   by   passage   of   time   or   by   delay   in   holding   of   the
examination.
16. In view of the submission made by Shri Rao, no orders
are   necessary   to   be   passed   in   I.A.   No.   89450   of   2021,   I.A.
14

No.44132 of 2022 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
officers­applicants   and   I.A.   No.   249   of   2009   filed   by   the   High
Court of Delhi are allowed in the following terms:
(i) Paragraph   28   (1)   (b)   of   the   order   dated   21 st
  March
2002   passed   by   this   Court,   is   modified   and
substituted as under:
“ 25% by promotion strictly on the basis of
merit through LDCE of Civil Judges having
7   years   qualifying   service   [(5   years   as
Civil   Judge   (Junior   Division)   and   2   years
as   Civil   Judge   (Senior   Division)   or   10
years   qualifying   service   as   Civil   Judge
(Junior Division) .”
(ii) Similarly, in the order dated 20 th
 April 2010 passed
by   this   Court,   the   direction   in   paragraph   (7),   i.e.,
“ Thus,   we   direct   that   henceforth   only   10%   of   the
cadre   strength   of   District   Judges   be   filled   up   by
limited   departmental   competitive   examination   with
those   candidates   who   have   qualified   service   of   five
15

years   as   Civil   Judge   (Senior   Division) ”,   is   modified
and substituted as under:
“ Thus, we direct that henceforth only 10%
of the cadre strength of District Judges be
filled   up   by   Limited   Departmental
Competitive   Examination   with   those
candidates   who   have   qualified   service   of
7   years   [(5   years   as   Civil   Judge   (Junior
Division)   and   2   years   as   Civil   Judge
(Senior   Division)   or   10   years   qualifying
service as Civil Judge(Junior Division).”
18. It   is   needless   to   state   that   since   the   aforesaid
modifications   are   being   directed   in   the   peculiar   facts   and
circumstances   pertaining   to   the   DHJS,   the   said   modifications
shall apply only insofar as the DHJS is concerned. 
……..….......................J.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
…….........................J.       
[B.R. GAVAI]
……..….......................J.
[ANIRUDDHA BOSE]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 19, 2022.
16