Shetty Commission - 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 Constitution Bench judgment reinterpreted Article 233(2) of the Constitution. It held that judicial officers are not barred from applying for the post of District Judge through direct recruitment. The Court clarified that the seven-year practice requirement under Article 233(2) applies only to candidates not already in judicial service, thereby overruling contrary precedents like Dheeraj Mor. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a batch of petitions challenging the interpretation of Article 233 of the Constitution, which governs the appointment of District Judges. The core dispute was whether a person already in the state judicial service (a Civil Judge) could apply for the post of District Judge through direct recruitment, a stream historically reserved fo...

Tag: Shetty Commission

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

Supreme Court Ruling: Judicial Officers with 7 Years’ Combined Experience Eligible for District Judge Post