Issues Order On Bengal Vice-Chancellor Appointment Dispute
The Supreme Court has dismissed the petition challenging the promotion of judicial officers in the Gujarat High Court. In its ruling, the court emphasized that “merit less seniority” does not equate to “comparative merit.” It stated that determining the suitability criteria for judicial officers under the 65 percent quota is the responsibility of the High Court. The court found no flaws in the Gujarat High Court’s promotion policy and cautioned that granting the petition could blur the distinction between district judges promoted under the 65 percent quota and those promoted solely based on merit under the 10 percent quota.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, delivering the verdict, mentioned that the decision was due today, but he had been attending the J20 summit in Brazil. He utilized aircraft internet on his return flight, during which Justice Pardiwala shared the draft judgment with him. The Supreme Court reiterated that promotions should follow the principle of “merit cum seniority” and passing a suitability test.
Background of the Promotion Dispute
The issue centered on the promotion of 68 judicial officers, including Judicial Magistrate Harish Hasmukhbhai Verma, who had found Congress leader Rahul Gandhi guilty of criminal defamation. The promotions, based on a 65 percent quota rule, were contested by two Senior Civil Judge cadre officers, Ravikumar Mehta and Sachin Pratap Rai Mehta. They argued that the recommendations by the High Court and the subsequent government notification were illegal.
The petitioners sought the annulment of the promotion list issued by the Gujarat High Court on March 10 and the corresponding state government notification. They also requested a directive for the Gujarat High Court to issue a new appointment list based on qualification and seniority. Previously, the Supreme Court had halted the promotion of the 68 lower judicial officers, including Surat Chief Judicial Magistrate Hasmukh Bhai Verma, citing violations of the Gujarat State Service Judicial Service Rules 2005.
