In Brief
A member of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service challenged criteria for promotion to District and Sessions Judge or equivalent, contending she was denied fair consideration by rules requiring minimum 'A' grade in five preceding years of Annual Confidential Reports. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's power to establish promotion criteria under Article 233 is constitutionally valid. The criteria were reasonable, gradually phased (starting 2009), and equally applied to all candidates. The appellant, having joined service in 2002 and aware of applicable IAS norms via Rule 27, could not claim ignorance. Her ineligibility resulted from comparative merit, not defective gradings or communication. Being considered but not promoted due to comparative merit does not violate the fundamental right to be considered for promotion. The appeal was dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.