A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Ors. v. The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand & Ors., [2025] 1 S.C.R. 490 : 2025 INSC 72 decides the narrow but important question whether candidates who satisfy the minimum suitability threshold under a High Court’s promotional scheme for the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service can be excluded from promotion merely because they are placed lower in a subsequent merit list. The appellants were Civil Judges (Senior Division) who obtained the minimum 40 marks required by the suitability test under Rules 4 and 5 of the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Services (Recruitment, Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules, 2001, yet were not promoted because juniors scored higher and a merit list was prepared.

The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appellants’ marks were lower than the last selected candidate. This Court (Satish Chandra Sharma, J.) relied on the Three-Judge Bench decision in Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta & Anr. v. High Court of Gujarat & Ors. (2024) and reiterated that for the 65% merit-cum-seniority promotional quota the test is one of individual suitability and not a departmental competitive examination; once a candidate clears the suitability threshold, that candidate cannot be ignored merely for lower placement in a merit list unless the rules expressly require comparative assessment.

Since appellants had subsequently been promoted, the remaining controversy was seniority and consequential service benefits. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order, and directed notional promotion with consequential benefits (except back wages).

Keywords: suitability test, merit-cum-seniority, notional promotion, Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service, Rule 4 & 5 (2001)

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute arises from promotion policy for elevation to the cadre of District Judge in Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service under the State Rules of 2001. The Rules provide three modes of entry: direct recruitment, promotion on merit-cum-seniority after passing a suitability test, and promotion via Limited Competitive Examination. For the 65% quota reserved for promotion by merit-cum-seniority the High Court prescribed a suitability test composed of interview, service profile (ACRs), evaluation of judgments, and service tenure marks; the minimum aggregate for suitability was fixed at 40 marks. Despite clearing that threshold, the appellants were bypassed because the High Court prepared a merit list and promoted officers who scored higher than them.

The High Court refused to quash the notification promoting the juniors. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine whether clearing the suitability threshold suffices for entitlement to promotion under the 65% quota or whether promotion is dependent upon comparative placement in a merit list. The appeal engages the fine distinction between a promotional route that is essentially qualitative (suitability) and one that is strictly competitive (departmental examination), and tests the scope of All India Judges’ Association jurisprudence as applied by this Court in Ravikumar Maheta.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Appellants were serving Civil Judges (Senior Division) appellant No.1 promoted to Senior Division on 23.07.2014; appellants Nos.2 & 3 promoted on 20.04.2016. In the combined gradation list they stood at serial 141, 195 and 204 respectively. The High Court issued a recruitment notification dated 19.05.2018 for appointment to the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Service. Under the notification and Rules, 65% of posts must be filled by promotion on merit-cum-seniority subject to passing a suitability test where 40 marks aggregate was minimum. Appellants participated and secured 50, 50 and 43 marks respectively (all above 40).

Nevertheless, a merit list prepared by the High Court resulted in the promotion of juniors whose marks were higher the last selected candidate had 51 marks. Appellants challenged this by writ; the High Court dismissed the petition on the footing that appellants were lower than the last selectee. Thereafter, appellants were eventually promoted; relief sought thus narrowed to seniority and consequential benefits. The Supreme Court examined prior precedent, notably Ravikumar Maheta (2024), where a Three-Judge Bench emphasized individual suitability for the 65% quota and disapproved treating that quota as a competitive departmental examination.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether for the 65% merit-cum-seniority promotion quota a candidate who secures the minimum marks in the suitability test can be excluded from promotion merely because he ranks below other candidates in a merit list?

ii. Whether a comparative merit-list based promotion procedure converts the 65% quota into a departmental competitive examination, contrary to the object and language of the Rules?

iii. Whether successful candidates who were later promoted are entitled to notional promotion from the date of initial promotions and consequential service benefits?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. Appellants submitted that they had cleared the prescribed suitability threshold (40 marks) and therefore their eligibility for promotion under the 65% quota was established.

ii. They contended that the 65% quota is not meant to function as a departmental competitive exam; hence, a subsequent merit list cannot be used to ignore otherwise suitable candidates.

iii. Reliance was placed on the Three-Judge Bench decision in Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta & Anr. which, they argued, mandates testing suitability on individual merits and prevents comparative displacement of suitable candidates.

iv. They sought notional promotion from the date of appointment of those promoted under notification 30.05.2019 and consequential benefits, excluding back wages.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. Respondents (High Court) contended that the selection process included a comparative element and the merit list determined promotions; appellants scored less than the last selectee.

ii. It was argued that the High Court’s discretion in framing selection procedures and deciding the relative merit of candidates must be respected unless arbitrary.

iii. Respondents emphasized that promotion policy should preserve the balance between merit and seniority and that comparative assessment is permissible if the rules permit.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS 

i. Jharkhand Superior Judicial Services (Recruitment, Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules, 2001 — r.4 (Appointment to the Service).

ii. Jharkhand Superior Judicial Services (Recruitment, Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules, 2001 — r.5 (Quota: 65% promotion on merit-cum-seniority; suitability test components; minimum 40 marks).

iii. Article 233, Constitution of India (contextually relevant for appointment of District Judges by Governor in consultation with High Court).

I) JUDGEMENT

The Court, speaking through Satish Chandra Sharma, J., accepted the appellant’s core contention and followed the precedent in Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta & Anr. (2024) where a Three-Judge Bench had clarified the constitutional and statutory architecture governing the 65% promotional quota. The Court reiterated that the suitability test is designed to assess individual continued efficiency and legal knowledge; it is not inherently a competitive departmental examination that ought to promote only the highest scorers in a rank order.

The Maheta bench had summarized that while High Courts may objectively evaluate candidates and may prescribe minimum standards, the mere fact of relative higher marks does not justify ignoring candidates who have satisfied the suitability cut-off. Applying that principle, the Court found it impermissible to deprive appellants of promotion solely on account of their lower placement in a merit list when they had cleared 40 marks. Since appellants had later in time been promoted, the contested relief was limited to seniority and consequential service benefits.

The Court set aside the High Court’s order declining relief, directed notional promotion to appellants from the date other officers were promoted under the 30.05.2019 notification, and ordered consequential benefits such as seniority, increments and notional pay fixation but denied back wages. The Court emphasized that High Courts retain the power to frame objective grading and to require comparative assessment if expressly stipulated by the rules; absent such a provision, comparative assessment cannot supplant the qualifying suitability test. The orders under challenge were therefore quashed in part and appeal allowed.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The dispositive legal principle is that where statutory or rule-based promotion under the 65% merit-cum-seniority quota prescribes a suitability test with a minimum qualifying mark, a candidate who secures that minimum cannot be excluded from promotion merely because a merit list ranks him below others. The suitable candidate’s entitlement attaches upon qualification; comparative merit only applies if the rules expressly make promotion dependent on relative ranking. In absence of such a mandate, the suitability test is to be applied to each candidate on his own merit. The Court anchored this ratio on Ravikumar Maheta and on the expressed terms of rr.4–5 (2001) which distinguish the 65% quota from the 10% strictly-merit quota.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court observed in obiter that High Courts may, if they so choose, incorporate comparative elements in the suitability criteria provided that such elements are clearly set out in the rules or notification and applied consistently to avoid retrospective prejudice. The Court further warned against converting the 65% quota into a de facto departmental competitive exam a transformation that would blur the statutory distinction between the 65% and 10% streams and would unjustly disturb the expectations of those previously promoted under established processes.

c. GUIDELINES

i. Where rules prescribe a qualifying suitability mark, candidates who clear that mark shall be considered suitable and cannot be ignored purely on account of a lower merit ranking unless rules expressly permit comparative selection.

ii. High Courts are entitled to frame objective components (ACRs, interview, judgment evaluation, tenure marks) but must state clearly whether comparative ranking will determine promotion.

iii. If a candidate is later promoted, courts may grant notional promotion from the date of earlier promotions with consequential benefits while denying back wages unless there is material to justify payment of arrears.

iv. Consistency and non-retrospectivity must guide any change in promotion policy to prevent prejudice to officers who have relied on extant procedures.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The decision reinforces the normative boundary between qualifying suitability and competitive selection in judicial promotions. It protects officers who clear stated suitability thresholds from being displaced by purely comparative ranking where rules prescribe only qualification. The Court’s remedy notional promotion with consequential benefits but without back wages strikes a pragmatic balance between correcting seniority anomalies and guarding public finances from open-ended claims. Practically, the judgment signals to High Courts to draft promotion rules with clarity: if comparative merit is intended, the notification must expressly require a relative ranking; otherwise, lines drawn by the Rules (65% vs 10%) must be respected.

The reliance on Ravikumar Maheta ensures doctrinal continuity and prevents ad hoc reengineering of promotion processes that would unsettle service expectations. The judgment is salutary for service jurisprudence: it upholds procedural fairness, enforces the substantive promise of suitability thresholds, and delineates acceptable remedial limits (notional promotion and consequential benefits) when earlier selection processes produced inequitable results.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Ors. v. The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand & Ors., [2025] 1 S.C.R. 490 : 2025 INSC 72.

2. Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta & Anr. v. High Court of Gujarat & Ors., [2024] 5 S.C.R. 1074 : 2024 SCC Online SC 972.

3. All India Judges’ Association (3) — (referred in Maheta; principles applied as discussed in Maheta).

b. Important Statutes / Rules Referred

1. Jharkhand Superior Judicial Services (Recruitment, Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules, 2001 — rr.4, 5.