equality in employment - The Legal Chamber

The Supreme Court, exercising its powers under Article 142, upheld the principle that upon entry into the Higher Judicial Service, officers from different recruitment sources lose their "birthmark." It mandated a uniform 4-point annual roster system for determining seniority, based on merit-cum-seniority within the cadre, and rejected preferential treatment based on prior service in lower judicial ranks. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an interlocutory application filed in the long-pending All India Judges Association writ petition. The application, brought by the Amicus Curiae, highlighted a recurring dispute regarding the criteria for determining inter se seniority among three categories of officers within the Higher Judicial Services (HJS): Regular Promotees (RPs), those p...

This Supreme Court judgment holds that once the Central Government permits women's induction into the JAG branch via notification under Section 12 of the Army Act, 1950, it cannot subsequently impose gender-based restrictions through administrative policies. Any such limitation violates Article 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution, as it constitutes indirect discrimination and exceeds the permissible scope of exceptions under Article 33. Facts Of The Case: The petitioners, two female candidates who secured the 4th and 5th ranks in the women's merit list for the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch's 31st Course, challenged a recruitment notification dated 18th January 2023. The notification prescribed six vacancies for male candidates and only three for female candidates. Despite the petiti...

Tag: equality in employment

Direct Recruits vs. Promotees: Supreme Court Lays Down Seniority Rules for Higher Judiciary

Supreme Court’s Big Equality Ruling :Army Can’t Restrict Women’s Numbers After Allowing Them In