Can perceived discontentment or heartburn among promotees, without more, justify creating a separate classification within a common cadre?

No. Perceived discontentment and heartburn without something more in the form of a legal claim, illegal denial, or at least a legitimate expectation cannot result in creating an artificial classification of members within a cadre. Career progression to the higher echelons of the judiciary is neither a matter of right nor of entitlement, and the mere inability of certain officers to succeed in the available examinations on the basis of merit cannot furnish a valid basis for preferential treatment.

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)

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.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India