Supreme Court Affirms Non-Comparative Assessment for 65% Judicial Promotions

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Ors. v. The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand & Ors. (2025 INSC 72), addressed the promotional criteria under the Jharkhand Superior Judicial Services (Recruitment, Appointment and Condition of Service) Rules, 2001 (“the Rules”). The appellants, who were judicial officers in the State of Jharkhand, challenged a High Court decision that denied them promotion to the post of District Judge under the 65% promotional quota, even though they had met the minimum suitability threshold.

The key issue in the dispute centered on whether officers who scored above the qualifying marks (i.e., met the suitability threshold) could be bypassed in promotion solely because other candidates within the same promotional quota had scored higher. The appellants claimed that once the threshold for suitability was met, all such candidates were entitled to promotion without a comparative assessment or merit list used as an exclusionary factor.

Summary of the Judgment

In its decision, the Supreme Court overturned the High Court of Jharkhand’s ruling and held that the appellants, who had successfully secured more than the minimum qualifying marks, could not be denied placement in the promotional cadre simply because others had marginally higher marks. The Court relied heavily on its earlier Three-Judge Bench ruling in Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta and Another v. High Court of Gujarat and Others (2024 SCC Online SC 972) to assert that promotions under the 65% quota should focus on "suitability" rather than strict comparative ranking.

As a result, the Court ordered that the appellants be granted notional promotion (and consequential benefits like seniority) from the date on which their peers, who had been promoted earlier, assumed the District Judge posts. However, the Supreme Court stopped short of awarding them back wages for the intervening period before the date of the judgment.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court’s ruling relied on the precedent established by the Three-Judge Bench in Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta and Another v. High Court of Gujarat and Others. In that case, the Supreme Court clarified that for the 65% promotional quota (often described as “promotion based on merit-cum-seniority and passing of a suitability test”), the law distinguishes between (a) proving the candidate’s fitness through a minimum suitability threshold, and (b) engaging in a competitive exercise to rank-order candidates.

In Ravikumar, the Court reasoned that while direct or competitive quotas (like the 10% merit-based promotions) might allow for rank-based preference, the 65% quota aimed to promote all officers who fulfill the threshold requirement of demonstrating a certain level of competency and knowledge of the law, along with satisfactory service records. Thus, a merit list is acceptable to the extent it tests suitability, but not if it is used to exclude candidates who have already reached the minimum qualifying benchmark.

Legal Reasoning

In the present case, the Supreme Court followed the same logic. The applicable Rules (especially Rules 4 and 5) describe how promotions should be made: 65% of the District Judge posts are to be filled based on merit-cum-seniority, which involves a "suitability test." The cut-off for that test was set at 40 marks. Once candidates cross that threshold, they are deemed “qualified” or “suitable.” The Court explained that denying promotion to candidates who have qualified purely on the basis of a higher mark achieved by another candidate introduces a competitive element that contradicts the very structure of the 65% quota.

Citing Ravikumar, the Court stated that the intention behind such a suitability test is to ensure minimum standards rather than to rank candidates in a strictly comparative manner. Therefore, the promotions already granted to certain candidates on the basis of higher scores could not legally exclude officers like the appellants from receiving the same treatment, provided they also met or exceeded the qualifying threshold.

Impact

This judgment brings significant clarity to the interpretation of promotional criteria, particularly under the 65% merit-cum-seniority rule used for higher judicial service appointments in various states. Its main takeaways are:

Judicial officers who meet the prescribed minimum marks in the suitability test cannot be denied promotion simply because other officers obtained higher marks.
The distinction between the 65% quota (merit-cum-seniority) and the higher competitive 10% quota is preserved, ensuring that the latter remains strictly merit-based, while the former is governed primarily by threshold suitability.
Future promotional processes must refrain from converting a suitability-based assessment into a fully comparative exercise, which is reserved exclusively for the 10% quota.
The decision clarifies that once candidates have passed the qualifying bar, the refusal to promote them undermines the legislative intent behind the 65% promotional pathway and risks unfairly disadvantaging officers who meet the required standards.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Below are a few key concepts and terminologies from the judgment, explained in simpler language:

Suitability Test: A procedure to ensure that each candidate meets a certain standard of competence (legal knowledge, past performance, efficiency). Unlike a competitive exam, it is not meant to rank every candidate from highest to lowest in a manner that excludes those already passing the threshold.
Merit-cum-Seniority vs. Strict Merit Recruitment: Under merit-cum-seniority, seniority remains relevant once a candidate crosses a determined suitability bar, whereas strict merit-based recruitment (like the 10% competitive quota) ranks every candidate, and only the top performers are filled into the limited positions.
Notional Promotion: A legal fiction wherein an employee is “treated” as if promoted from a specific past date, primarily to protect incidental benefits such as seniority and increments. However, the actual monetary benefits, such as arrears of salary, might not always be granted and can be limited to “notional” adjustments.
Service Profile and ACR (Annual Confidential Report): These refer to the performance evaluations of the judicial officers, where they receive gradings (Outstanding, Very Good, and so on). Such assessments contribute to the suitability marking in promotions.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Dharmendra Kumar Singh & Ors. v. The Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand & Ors. cements the principle that the 65% promotional quota Rule cannot be conflated with a competitive selection process. Once a judicial officer meets the minimum standards set out in the suitability test, a further comparative ranking or shortlisting to exclude those who have already qualified is unwarranted.

By clarifying that officers who have qualified must be promoted simultaneously and by awarding notional benefits to the successful appellants, the Supreme Court firmly protects the consistency and fairness of promotional procedures in the judiciary. States and High Courts across India may now need to reevaluate their internal rules and practices to ensure compliance with this principle, particularly to avoid blending alternative distinct quotas and thereby eroding the distinctiveness of the 65% promotional track. This Judgment will undoubtedly influence future cases involving promotion policies in the judicial hierarchy and beyond.