LexStreakRead free →
Supreme Court of India· 19 November 2025

Can length of prior service in the lower rungs of the judiciary be reckoned to determine seniority or fixation in the Selection Grade and Super Time Scale within the Higher Judicial Services?

All India Judges Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
2025 INSC 1328 · WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1022 OF 1989
Coram: B.R. Gavai; Surya Kant; Vikram Nath; K. Vinod Chandran; Joymalya Bagchi
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow Art. 142 Constitution of India, …📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

No. On appointment and determination of their inter se seniority at the time of appointment into the Higher Judicial Services, the incumbents lose the birthmark of the source from which they are appointed. There is no basis to consider the previous experience as a Civil Judge as an intelligible differentia creating a reasonable classification to favour Regular Promotees or LDCE officers in the selection for higher grade scales or appointment as Principal District Judges.

Headnote

Constitution of India — Arts. 32, 141, 142 and 233 to 235 — Higher Judicial Services — Inter se seniority between Regular Promotees, LDCE promotees and Direct Recruits — Loss of "birthmark" — Annual 4-point roster — Selection Grade and Super Time Scale — Merit-cum-seniority — Intelligible differentia — Constitution of India — Arts. 32, 141 and 142 — Uniform guidelines for judicial services — Arts. 233 to 235 — Held: There is no constitutional impediment to this Court exercising its unique power of judicial review under Article 32, read with Articles 141 and 142, to lay down uniform guidelines governing the structure and functioning of the judicial services across the country. Such guidelines do not foreclose the powers of the High Court but establish a homogenous framework within which superintendence is exercised. (¶36, 37) Service law — Common cadre — Loss of "birthmark" — Intelligible differentia — Held further: On appointment and determination of inter se seniority at the time of appointment into the Higher Judicial Services, the incumbents lose the "birthmark" of the source from which they are appointed. Previous experience as a Civil Judge is no intelligible differentia creating a reasonable classification to favour Regular Promotees or LDCE officers in selection for higher grade scales. (¶61, 64) Higher Judicial Services — Annual 4-point roster — Continuous length of service — Held further: Seniority within the Higher Judicial Services shall be determined through an annual 4-point roster filled in the repeating sequence of two Regular Promotees, one LDCE and one Direct Recruit. Continuous length of service is otherwise the criterion, all appointees of a recruitment year being placed against their respective annual roster points regardless of the actual date of appointment. Application disposed of. (¶70, 81, 100)

In the Court's own words
Paragraph 61In this light, the theory of classification, as proposed by the Amicus, subverts and submerges the precious guarantee of equality as available to the members of the common cadre, who, on appointment and determination of their inter se seniority, at the time of appointment into the HJS, lose the ‘birthmark’ of the source from which they are appointed.
Paragraph 64Hence, if at all the experience in the lower rungs of the judiciary is to be reckoned for determining seniority in HJS, there should be some compelling reason which stands the test of reasonableness, not being vitiated by the foul of arbitrariness, which again has to be provided by means of statutory rules. In our view, there is no basis to consider the previous experience as a Civil Judge as an intelligible differentia creating a reasonable classification to favour RPs or LDCEs in the selection for higher grade scales or appointment as Principal District Judges.
Acts & Sections
Art. 142 Constitution of India, 1950Art. 235 Constitution of India, 1950Art. 16 Constitution of India, 1950

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of All India Judges Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Does the control over the district judiciary vested in the High Courts under Articles 233 to 235 bar this Court from laying down uniform guidelines on seniority in the Higher Judicial Services?Can perceived discontentment or heartburn among promotees, without more, justify creating a separate classification within a common cadre?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections