Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently in matter of Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta & Anr. v. High Court of Gujarat & Ors., the Supreme Court upheld the promotion process implemented by the High Court of Gujarat for District Judge vacancies, emphasizing the absence of an inherent right to demand promotion among government employees.

• It emphasized that promotion policies are primarily the prerogative of the legislature or executive, with judicial review limited to instances of violation of equality principles under Article 16 of the Constitution of India , 1950 (COI).

What was the Background of Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta & Anr. v. High Court of Gujarat & Ors. Case?

• The present writ petition, a two-Judge Bench noted prima facie that the case of All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India & Ors. (2002) 4 SCC 247 highlighted the importance of merit-based criteria for promotions in the Higher Judicial Service.
  • The Court held that promotion to the position of District Judge should be based on 'Merit-cum-Seniority'.
• The High Court of Gujarat issued a recruitment notice on April 12, 2022, announcing 68 vacancies for promotion to the cadre of District Judges from Civil Judges (Senior Division), under a 65% quota based on 'Merit-cum-Seniority' and a Suitability Test as per Rule 5(1)(I) of the 2005 Rules.
• Alongside the notice, a list of 205 judicial officers from the Civil Judge (Senior Division) cadre was issued, comprising the 'Zone of Consideration' for filling the vacancies. This list included the senior-most Civil Judges (Senior Division), not exceeding three times the notified vacancies.
• The suitability of the 205 candidates within the zone of consideration was to be assessed based on four components: a Written Test (Objective Type – MCQs), Evaluation of Annual Confidential Reports for the last five years, Assessment of Average Disposal Rate over the last five years, and Evaluation of Judgments delivered in the last one year.
• Candidates needed to score a minimum of 40% in each component and a minimum aggregate of 50% across all four to be eligible for inclusion in the Select List for promotion.
• Following the Written Test, 175 candidates cleared it by securing at least 40% marks.
• Subsequently, after evaluating ACRs, judgments, and disposal rates, 149 candidates met the eligibility criteria for promotion.
• The High Court then prepared the final Select List on March 10, 2023, promoting the senior-most 68 candidates from the pool of 149 eligible candidates to the position of District Judge.
• The petitioners have approached the court under Article 32 of the Constitution, raising concerns regarding the promotion process.

What were the Court’s Observations?

• Supreme Court observed that government employees do not possess a legal right to demand promotion, and Court’s interference in promotion policy should be restricted solely to instances where there is a breach of the equality provision enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution.
• On May 17, the Court affirmed the validity of the High Court of Gujarat's 2023 recommendations for promoting Senior Civil Judges to the 65% promotion quota of District Judges, based on the merit-cum-seniority principle.
  • It stated that as the Constitution does not prescribe promotion criteria, government employees cannot demand promotions as an inherent entitlement.
  • The Court emphasized that promotion policies primarily fall within the purview of the legislature or executive, with judicial review being limited in scope.
• Court noted that in India, no government servant can claim promotion as their right because the Constitution does not prescribe criteria for filling seats in promotional posts.
  • The Legislature or the executive may decide the method for filling vacancies to promotional posts based on the nature of employment and the functions that the candidate will be expected to discharge.
  • The courts cannot sit in review to decide whether the policy adopted for promotion is suited to select the 'best candidates', unless on the limited ground where it violates the principle of equal opportunity under Article 16 of the Constitution."
• In this case, the petitioners sought to invalidate the Select List issued by the High Court of Gujarat for the promotion of Senior Civil Judges to the Cadre of District Judge (65% quota), alleging violations of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and Rule 5 of the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005.
  • Rule 5 mandates that 65% of promotions to the District Judge cadre must be based on merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test.
• The Court has recommended that the Gujarat High Court revise its Rules regarding the suitability test to align them with the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975.
  • Key suggestions include incorporating a Viva Voce as an additional testing component, raising the passing threshold for each existing component, evaluating the quality of judgments from the past two years instead of one, and factoring in seniority within the test scoring when finalizing the merit list.

What is Article 16 of COI, 1950?

• About:
  • Article 16 of the COI, 1950, guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment under the State.
  • It prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence, or any of them in respect of any employment or office under the State.
  • Article 16 ensures that all citizens have equal access to opportunities in government employment and prohibits unfair treatment based on certain characteristics.
  • Additionally, Article 16 allows for reservations to be made in public employment for disadvantaged groups, such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes, to address historical and social inequalities.
• Article 16
  • Article 16 of the Indian Constitution deals with the right to equality in matters of public employment.
  • Equal Opportunity: Article 16(1) guarantees equality of opportunity to all the citizens in matters of public employment under the State.
  • Equal Access to Public Employment: Article 16(2) prohibits the State from conferring any discrimination against citizens in the matter of public employment on the grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence, or any of them.
  • Reservations: Article 16(4) empowers the State to make provisions for the reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State.
  • Special Provisions for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes: Article 16(4A) provides for the reservation of posts in favour of any Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in public employment.
  • Reservations in Promotion: Article 16(4B) allows the State to provide for reservation in matters of promotion to any class or classes of posts in the services under the State in favour of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.
  • Reservation in Promotions: Article 16(6) allows the State to reserve appointments or posts in favour of any economically weaker section of citizen other than the class mentioned in clause (4), in addition of the existing reservation and subject to a maximum of 10% of the post in each category.

How Law Related to Promotions in India Evolved?

• During the British Raj, promotions were primarily based on seniority, as observed in the practices of the East India Company and recognized officially in the Charter Act of 1793 until 1861.
• The Indian Civil Service Act of 1861 introduced a system of promotions based on both seniority and merit, known as 'Seniority-cum-Merit', incorporating integrity, competence, and ability.
• Competitive examinations were initiated in 1854, aimed at replacing the patronage-based system with a merit-based approach in civil services to eliminate political influences and bias.
• Post-independence, the First Pay Commission in 1947 recommended a combination of direct recruitment and promotions, advocating seniority for roles requiring office experience and merit for higher positions.
• Subsequent Pay commissions in 1959 and 1969 supported merit-based promotions alongside seniority, considering seniority as indicative of loyalty and a deterrent to favoritism.
• The principle of seniority in promotions was perceived to be derived from the belief that experience correlates with competence and limits discretion and favoritism.
• In the Indian Constitutional context, government employees do not have an inherent right to demand promotion, as the Constitution does not prescribe specific criteria for promotions.
• Promotion policies are determined by the government, or the legislature based on the nature of employment and job requirements, with limited judicial intervention only when such policies violate the equality principle under Article 16 of the Constitution.

What are Relevant Case Laws related to Article 16 of COI?

• Indra Sawhney & Others Vs Union of India,1993
  • Article 16(4) does not grant reservation in promotion, according to a nine-judge bench, because it only applies to reservations in appointments. All promotion reservations provided to SCs/STs in government employment are now in jeopardy because of the ruling.
  • After the 16^th of November 1992, the court’s decision permitted reservation in promotion to continue for another five years.
• M. Nagaraj v. Union of India ,2006: The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of all the impugned amendments related to reservation in promotions for SCs and STs.
  • The court ruled that the amendments did not violate the basic structure of equality under Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution.
  • The court held that the amendments are enabling provisions, allowing but not forcing the States to provide reservation in promotions if they identify backwardness, inadequate representation, and maintain overall efficiency.