RAVIKUMAR DHANSUKHLAL MAHETA & ANR. versus HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT & ORS.

Citation: [2024] 5 S.C.R. 1074 · Decided: 17-05-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 20 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2024] 5 S.C.R. 1074 : 2024 INSC 436
Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta & Anr. 
v. 
High Court of Gujarat & Ors.
(Writ Petition (c) No. 432 of 2023)
17 May 2024
[Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI, J.B. Pardiwala* 
and Manoj Misra, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
(i) What is the scope of principle of the ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ in 
service jurisprudence; and (ii) Whether promotion of Civil Judges 
(Senior Division) to the cadre of District Judges in accordance 
with Rule 5(1) of the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 
and the Recruitment Notice dated 12.04.2022 issued by the High 
Court of Gujarat is contrary to the principle of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ 
as laid down in All India Judges’ Association (3).
Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Art. 32 and Art.226 – Maintainability 
of the Writ Petition under Article 32 – A preliminary objection 
was raised as regards the maintainability of the writ petition 
under Article 32 of the Constitution, on the ground that the 
petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy available 
to them under Article 226 of the Constitution:
Held: Two judicial officers of the rank of Civil Judge (Senior Division) 
governed by the Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 have 
invoked the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution – The 
availability of an alternative remedy does not in any manner 
affect the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 32 of the 
Constitution – The rule behind relegating a party to first avail the 
alternative remedy before knocking the doors of this Court is a 
rule of self-restraint that is exercised by this Court as a matter of 
convenience – Further, wherever the facts of the case are not in 
dispute, and the issue involves the interpretation of rules which are 
of significant importance having a far-reaching effect, it would be 
a fit case for this Court to exercise its discretion and entertain the 
writ petition under Article 32 even if there is an alternative remedy 
available. [Paras 40, 41]
* Author
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 
1075
Ravikumar Dhansukhlal Maheta & Anr. v. 
High Court of Gujarat & Ors.
Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 – The Legislative 
History and Scheme of the Gujarat State Judicial Service 
Rules, 2005 – discussed.
Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005 – Rule 5(1) with 
Rule 5(3) – Modes of recruitment:
Held: A combined reading of the Rule 5(1) with Rule 5(3) of the 
2005 Rules makes it clear that there are three distinct modes of 
recruitment to the cadre of District & Sessions Judge which are 
as follows: – (I) 65% posts by promotion from the eligible Civil 
Judges (Senior Division) having a minimum of two-years of service 
on the basis of ‘Merit-cumSeniority’; (II) 10% posts by promotion 
from eligible Civil Judges (Senior Division) with a minimum of 
five-years of service on basis of merit through a competitive 
examination and; (III) 25% posts by direct recruitment from the 
eligible members of the Bar on the basis of a written exam and 
viva voce. [Para 67]
Service Law – Evolution of the Principles of ‘Merit-cum-
Seniority’ and ‘Seniority-cum-Merit’ in Service Jurisprudence  – 
discussed.
Service Law – Principle of ‘Seniority-cum-Merit’:
Held: The principle of ‘Seniority-cum-Merit’ postulates that:  
(i) Minimum requirement of merit and suitability which is necessary 
for the higher post can be prescribed for the purpose of promotion – 
(ii) Comparative Assessment amongst the candidates is not 
required – (iii) Seniority of a candidate is not a determinative factor 
for promotion but has a predominant role – (iv) Upon fulfilling the 
minimum qualifications, promotions must be based on inter-se 
seniority. [Para 98 (I)]
Service Law – Principle of the ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’:
Held: The principle of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ postulates that:  
(i) Merit plays a predominant role in and seniority alone cannot be 
given primacy; (ii) Comparative Assessment of Merit is a crucial, 
though not a mandatory, factor; (iii) Only where merit is equal in 
all respects can inter-se seniority be considered – Meaning that 
a junior candidate can be promoted over the senior if the junior is 
more meritorious. [Para 98 (II)]
Service Law – Principles of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ and ‘Seniority-
cum-Merit’ – Nature of these principles:
1076
[2024] 5 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Held: The principle of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ and ‘Seniority-cum-
Merit’ are a flexible and a fluid concept akin to broad principles 
within which the actual
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.