Comparative Report On Judiciary Norms For Selection and Promotion

652
113525/2018/NM
Performance Evaluation and Promotion Schemes of

Judicial Officers in India
A Comparative Report
A Report By:
Prof. Srikrishna Deva Rao
Dr. Rangin Pallav Tripathy
Ms. Eluckiaa A
i
653
113525/2018/NM
This report on Performance Evaluation and Promotion Schemes of Judicial Offices in India is
pursuant to the research project on “A Comparative Analysis of Performance Appraisal
Mechanisms and Schemes of Promotion in relation to the Judges of Subordinate Judiciary in
different States in India” funded by the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice,
Government of India and implemented by National Law University Odisha.
We would like to acknowledge the contributions of the following in preparation and

finalisation of the report;
1. Mr. Owais Hasan Khan

2. Ms. Kuntirani Padhan
3. Dr. Ravindra Chingle
4. Mr. Mohammad Tahseen Sofi
5. Mr. Akash Yadav
6. Ms. Nupur Trivedi
7. Mr. Bhallamudi Rakshith
8. Mr. Ashirvad Nayak
9. Mr. Kevin Mathew
10. Mr. Sridutt Mishra
11. Mr. Priyam Jain
Srikrishna Deva Rao is the Vice-Chancellor of National Law University Odisha
Rangin Pallav Tripathy is an Assistant Professor of Law at National Law University Odisha
Eluckiaa A is a Research Fellow at National Law University Odisha
ii
654
113525/2018/NM
Table of Contents
INDEX OF TABLES .......................................................................... 15
INDEX OF FIGURES .......................................................................... 25
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND PROMOTION SCHEMES OF JUDICIAL OFFICES IN INDIA ........ 28
A COMPARATIVE REPORT .......................................................................... 28
INTRODUCTION .......................................................................... 29
ANALYSIS OF QUANTITATIVE NORMS PRESCRIBED FOR JUDICIAL OFFICERS ..................... 37
A. STRUCTURE OF THE NORMS ....................................................................................... 37
ASSAM ........................................................................................................................... 41
MANIPUR ....................................................................................................................... 41
ODISHA .......................................................................................................................... 42
WEST BENGAL ............................................................................................................... 43
KARNATAKA .................................................................................................................. 43
TAMIL NADU ................................................................................................................. 44
CHHATTISGARH ............................................................................................................. 44
MADHYA PRADESH ........................................................................................................ 45
MAHARASHTRA ............................................................................................................. 45
GUJARAT ....................................................................................................................... 46
NEW DELHI .................................................................................................................... 46
UTTAR PRADESH ............................................................................................................ 47
B. NATURE OF THE NORMS ............................................................................................. 48
I. UNITS SYSTEM ....................................................................................................... 48
II. WORKING DAY SYSTEM......................................................................................... 48
III. CASE-CONVERSION SYSTEM .................................................................................. 49
C. THE RATING SYSTEM ................................................................................................. 50
1
655
113525/2018/NM
I. TIMELINE OF QUANTITATIVE BENCHMARK ............................................................ 50
II. RATINGS SCALE ..................................................................................................... 50
III. SINGLE/MULTIPLE RATING SCHEME ...................................................................... 51
ASSAM ........................................................................................................................... 53
MANIPUR ....................................................................................................................... 54
ODISHA .......................................................................................................................... 54
WEST BENGAL ............................................................................................................... 55
KARNATAKA .................................................................................................................. 59
TAMIL NADU ................................................................................................................. 60
CHHATTISGARH ............................................................................................................. 65
MADHYA PRADESH ........................................................................................................ 66
MAHARASHTRA ............................................................................................................. 67
GUJARAT ....................................................................................................................... 68
NEW DELHI .................................................................................................................... 69
UTTAR PRADESH ............................................................................................................ 69
D. POLICY REGARDING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS FOR QUANTITATIVE BENCHMARK .... 70
ASSAM ........................................................................................................................... 71
MANIPUR ....................................................................................................................... 71
ODISHA .......................................................................................................................... 71
WEST BENGAL ............................................................................................................... 71
KARNATAKA .................................................................................................................. 73
CHHATTISGARH ............................................................................................................. 73
MADHYA PRADESH ........................................................................................................ 73
MAHARASHTRA ............................................................................................................. 73
GUJARAT ....................................................................................................................... 74
E. POLICY REGARDING NON-DECISIONAL JUDICIAL WORK ........................................... 75
ASSAM ........................................................................................................................... 76
2
656
113525/2018/NM
MANIPUR ....................................................................................................................... 76
ODISHA .......................................................................................................................... 76
WEST BENGAL ............................................................................................................... 76
KARNATAKA .................................................................................................................. 77
TAMIL NADU ................................................................................................................. 77
CHHATTISGARH ............................................................................................................. 77
MADHYA PRADESH ........................................................................................................ 77
MAHARASHTRA ............................................................................................................. 78
GUJARAT ....................................................................................................................... 78
NEW DELHI .................................................................................................................... 78
UTTAR PRADESH ............................................................................................................ 78
F. POLICY REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES ......................................... 79
ASSAM ........................................................................................................................... 80
MANIPUR ....................................................................................................................... 81
ODISHA .......................................................................................................................... 81
WEST BENGAL ............................................................................................................... 81
KARNATAKA .................................................................................................................. 82
TAMIL NADU ................................................................................................................. 82
CHHATTISGARH ............................................................................................................. 82
MADHYA PRADESH ........................................................................................................ 83
MAHARASHTRA ............................................................................................................. 84
GUJARAT ....................................................................................................................... 85
NEW DELHI .................................................................................................................... 85
UTTAR PRADESH ............................................................................................................ 86
G. POLICY REGARDING DISPOSAL OF OLD CASES .......................................................... 87
ASSAM ........................................................................................................................... 88
MANIPUR ....................................................................................................................... 88
3
657
113525/2018/NM
ODISHA .......................................................................................................................... 89
WEST BENGAL ............................................................................................................... 89
KARNATAKA .................................................................................................................. 89
TAMIL NADU ................................................................................................................. 89
CHHATTISGARH ............................................................................................................. 90
MADHYA PRADESH ........................................................................................................ 90
MAHARASHTRA ............................................................................................................. 91
GUJARAT ....................................................................................................................... 92
NEW DELHI .................................................................................................................... 93
UTTAR PRADESH ............................................................................................................ 93
H. POLICY REGARDING INCENTIVE WEIGHTAGE ............................................................ 94
ASSAM ........................................................................................................................... 95
MANIPUR ....................................................................................................................... 95
CHHATTISGARH ............................................................................................................. 96
MADHYA PRADESH ........................................................................................................ 96
MAHARASHTRA ............................................................................................................. 96
NEW DELHI .................................................................................................................... 96
I. POLICY REGARDING CONCESSION FOR LEAVE AVAILED AND REGARDING NEWLY

RECRUITED OFFICERS ........................................................................................................ 97
J. POLICY REGARDING CONCESSION FOR LEAVE AVAILED ............................................ 97
ASSAM ........................................................................................................................... 98
MANIPUR ....................................................................................................................... 98
ODISHA .......................................................................................................................... 98
WEST BENGAL ............................................................................................................... 99
KARNATAKA .................................................................................................................. 99
TAMIL NADU ................................................................................................................. 99
CHHATTISGARH ............................................................................................................. 99
4
658
113525/2018/NM
MADHYA PRADESH ........................................................................................................ 99
MAHARASHTRA ........................................................................................................... 100
GUJARAT ..................................................................................................................... 100
NEW DELHI .................................................................................................................. 100
UTTAR PRADESH .......................................................................................................... 100
K. POLICY REGARDING CONCESSION FOR NEWLY RECRUITED OFFICERS ..................... 101
CHHATTISGARH ........................................................................................................... 101
MADHYA PRADESH ...................................................................................................... 101
MAHARASHTRA ........................................................................................................... 102
GUJARAT ..................................................................................................................... 102
L. A HYPOTHETICAL COMPARISON OF QUANTITATIVE WORKLOAD ............................ 102
ODISHA, KARNATAKA AND TAMIL NADU .................................................................... 105
ASSAM, NEW DELHI, CHHATTISGARH AND MADHYA PRADESH .................................. 107
ANALYSIS OF ACR PROFORMA ......................................................................................... 117
A. STRUCTURE OF THE ACR PROFORMA ...................................................................... 117
ASSAM ......................................................................................................................... 118
MANIPUR ..................................................................................................................... 119
ODISHA ........................................................................................................................ 120
KARNATAKA ................................................................................................................ 121
TAMIL NADU ............................................................................................................... 122
CHHATTISGARH ........................................................................................................... 122
MADHYA PRADESH ...................................................................................................... 123
MAHARASHTRA ........................................................................................................... 123
GUJARAT ..................................................................................................................... 124
NEW DELHI .................................................................................................................. 127
UTTAR PRADESH .......................................................................................................... 128
B. CONTENTS OF THE ACR PROFORMA ........................................................................ 129
5
659
113525/2018/NM
ASSAM ......................................................................................................................... 131
MANIPUR ..................................................................................................................... 132
ODISHA ........................................................................................................................ 132
KARNATAKA ................................................................................................................ 133
TAMIL NADU ............................................................................................................... 134
CHHATTISGARH ........................................................................................................... 134
MAHARASHTRA ........................................................................................................... 136
GUJARAT ..................................................................................................................... 137
NEW DELHI .................................................................................................................. 138
UTTAR PRADESH .......................................................................................................... 139
C. RATING SCHEME IN ACR PROFORMA ...................................................................... 140
I. QUANTITATIVE YARDSTICK ................................................................................. 141
I. ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUE .................................................................................... 144
ANALYSIS OF THE SCHEMES OF PROMOTION ................................................................... 146
A. OVERALL SCHEME OF PROMOTION .......................................................................... 146
I. PROMOTION AS SENIOR CIVIL JUDGES ................................................................. 147
II. PROMOTION AS DISTRICT JUDGES ........................................................................ 148
B. ELIGIBILITY FOR PROMOTION ................................................................................... 150
I. ELIGIBILITY FOR PROMOTION AS SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE ........................................ 150
II. ELIGIBILITY FOR REGULAR PROMOTION AS DISTRICT JUDGE............................... 150
III. ELIGIBILITY FOR ACCELERATED PROMOTION AS DISTRICT JUDGE....................... 151
ASSAM ......................................................................................................................... 152
MANIPUR ..................................................................................................................... 152
ODISHA ........................................................................................................................ 153
WEST BENGAL ............................................................................................................. 153
KARNATAKA ................................................................................................................ 154
TAMIL NADU ............................................................................................................... 154
6
660
113525/2018/NM
CHHATTISGARH ........................................................................................................... 155
MADHYA PRADESH ...................................................................................................... 155
MAHARASHTRA ........................................................................................................... 156
GUJARAT ..................................................................................................................... 157
NEW DELHI .................................................................................................................. 157
UTTAR PRADESH .......................................................................................................... 158
C. CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION AS SENIOR CIVIL JUDGES .............................................. 159
I. JUDGMENTS ......................................................................................................... 159
II. ANNUAL CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS ....................................................................... 160
III. DISPOSAL RECORD ............................................................................................... 161
IV. CHARACTER/INTEGRITY/VIGILANCE REPORT ...................................................... 162
V. PENDING DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY/PROCEEDING .............................................. 162
ASSAM ......................................................................................................................... 163
MANIPUR ..................................................................................................................... 163
ODISHA ........................................................................................................................ 164
WEST BENGAL ............................................................................................................. 164
KARNATAKA ................................................................................................................ 164
TAMIL NADU ............................................................................................................... 165
CHHATTISGARH ........................................................................................................... 165
MADHYA PRADESH ...................................................................................................... 165
MAHARASHTRA ........................................................................................................... 166
GUJARAT ..................................................................................................................... 167
NEW DELHI .................................................................................................................. 167
UTTAR PRADESH .......................................................................................................... 168
D. ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUE OF CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION AS SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE .. 168
I. ASSESSMENT OF JUDGEMENTS ............................................................................. 168
II. ASSESSMENT OF ACR RECORDS........................................................................... 168
7
661
113525/2018/NM
A. BENCHMARK SYSTEM ....................................................................................... 168
B. SYSTEM OF MINIMUM GRADES ......................................................................... 169
III. ASSESSMENT OF DISPOSAL RECORDS .................................................................. 169
ASSAM ......................................................................................................................... 170
MANIPUR ..................................................................................................................... 171
ODISHA ........................................................................................................................ 172
WEST BENGAL ............................................................................................................. 172
KARNATAKA ................................................................................................................ 173
TAMIL NADU ............................................................................................................... 174
CHHATTISGARH ........................................................................................................... 174
MADHYA PRADESH ...................................................................................................... 174
MAHARASHTRA ........................................................................................................... 175
GUJARAT ..................................................................................................................... 176
NEW DELHI .................................................................................................................. 178
UTTAR PRADESH .......................................................................................................... 178
E. CRITERIA FOR REGULAR PROMOTION AS DISTRICT JUDGE ....................................... 179
I. SUITABILITY TEST................................................................................................ 179
II. ACR .................................................................................................................... 179
III. EVALUATION OF JUDGMENTS ............................................................................... 180
IV. DISPOSAL RECORD ............................................................................................... 181
V. CHARACTER/INTEGRITY/VIGILANCE REPORT ...................................................... 181
VI. PENDING DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDING/ENQUIRY .............................................. 181
ASSAM ......................................................................................................................... 182
MANIPUR ..................................................................................................................... 183
ODISHA ........................................................................................................................ 183
WEST BENGAL ............................................................................................................. 183
KARNATAKA ................................................................................................................ 183
8
662
113525/2018/NM
TAMIL NADU ............................................................................................................... 184
CHHATTISGARH ........................................................................................................... 184
MADHYA PRADESH ...................................................................................................... 185
MAHARASHTRA ........................................................................................................... 185
GUJARAT ..................................................................................................................... 186
NEW DELHI .................................................................................................................. 186
UTTAR PRADESH .......................................................................................................... 186
F. ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUE OF CRITERIA FOR REGULAR PROMOTION AS DISTRICT

JUDGE .............................................................................................................................. 187
I. SUITABILITY TEST................................................................................................ 187
ASSAM ......................................................................................................................... 188
MANIPUR ..................................................................................................................... 188
ODISHA ........................................................................................................................ 189
WEST BENGAL ............................................................................................................. 189
KARNATAKA ................................................................................................................ 190
TAMIL NADU ............................................................................................................... 190
CHHATTISGARH ........................................................................................................... 191
MADHYA PRADESH ...................................................................................................... 191
MAHARASHTRA ........................................................................................................... 192
GUJARAT ..................................................................................................................... 193
NEW DELHI .................................................................................................................. 195
UTTAR PRADESH .......................................................................................................... 195
G. CRITERIA FOR ACCELERATED PROMOTION AS DISTRICT JUDGE ............................... 196
I. LIMITED DEPARTMENTAL COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION ...................................... 197
II. VIVA VOCE .......................................................................................................... 197
III. EVALUATION OF JUDGMENTS ............................................................................... 198
IV. EVALUATION OF ACR .......................................................................................... 199
9
663
113525/2018/NM
ASSAM ......................................................................................................................... 200
MANIPUR ..................................................................................................................... 201
ODISHA ........................................................................................................................ 201
WEST BENGAL ............................................................................................................. 201
KARNATAKA ................................................................................................................ 202
TAMIL NADU ............................................................................................................... 202
CHHATTISGARH ........................................................................................................... 203
MADHYA PRADESH ...................................................................................................... 203
MAHARASHTRA ........................................................................................................... 203
GUJARAT ..................................................................................................................... 204
NEW DELHI .................................................................................................................. 204
UTTAR PRADESH .......................................................................................................... 204
H. ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUE OF CRITERIA FOR ACCELERATED PROMOTION AS DISTRICT

JUDGE .............................................................................................................................. 205
I. LIMITED DEPARTMENTAL COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION........................................ 205
II. VIVA VOCE ........................................................................................................... 205
ASSAM ......................................................................................................................... 207
MANIPUR ..................................................................................................................... 208
ODISHA ........................................................................................................................ 209
WEST BENGAL ............................................................................................................. 210
KARNATAKA ................................................................................................................ 210
TAMIL NADU ............................................................................................................... 211
CHHATTISGARH ........................................................................................................... 211
MADHYA PRADESH ...................................................................................................... 212
MAHARASHTRA ........................................................................................................... 213
GUJARAT ..................................................................................................................... 214
NEW DELHI .................................................................................................................. 215
10
664
113525/2018/NM
UTTAR PRADESH .......................................................................................................... 215
SURVEY ON PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL AND PROMOTION SCHEMES OF JUDICIAL

OFFICERS ........................................................................................................................... 217
ANALYSIS OF DIRECT RECRUITMENT OF JUDGES ............................................................ 235
A. CIVIL JUDGE (JUNIOR DIVISION) ............................................................................... 235
I. ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 235
ACADEMIC QUALIFICATION ...................................................................................... 236
NATIONALITY........................................................................................................... 236
AGE .......................................................................................................................... 236
PROHIBITION OF BIGAMY ......................................................................................... 237
GOOD CHARACTER................................................................................................... 237
NO DISMISSAL OR EXPULSION FROM SERVICE ........................................................... 237
NO CONVICTION FOR OFFENCES INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE .............................. 237
NO INVOLVEMENT IN UNFAIR PRACTICE ................................................................... 237
GOOD HEALTH .......................................................................................................... 237
LANGUAGE ............................................................................................................... 238
ASSAM ............................................................................................................................. 238
MANIPUR ......................................................................................................................... 239
ODISHA ............................................................................................................................ 240
WEST BENGAL................................................................................................................. 241
KARNATAKA.................................................................................................................... 241
TAMIL NADU ................................................................................................................... 242
CHHATTISGARH ............................................................................................................... 243
MADHYA PRADESH.......................................................................................................... 244
MAHARASHTRA ............................................................................................................... 245
GUJARAT ......................................................................................................................... 247
NEW DELHI ..................................................................................................................... 247
11
665
113525/2018/NM
UTTAR PRADESH ............................................................................................................. 248
II. METHOD OF RECRUITMENT.................................................................................. 249
ASSAM ............................................................................................................................. 251
MANIPUR ......................................................................................................................... 254
ODISHA ............................................................................................................................ 256
WEST BENGAL................................................................................................................. 258
KARNATAKA.................................................................................................................... 260
TAMIL NADU ................................................................................................................... 261
CHHATTISGARH ............................................................................................................... 262
MADHYA PRADESH.......................................................................................................... 263
MAHARASHTRA ............................................................................................................... 264
GUJARAT ......................................................................................................................... 265
NEW DELHI ..................................................................................................................... 265
UTTAR PRADESH ............................................................................................................. 266
B. DISTRICT JUDGES ..................................................................................................... 268
I. ELIGIBILITY CONDITIONS ..................................................................................... 268
MINIMUM YEARS OF PRACTICE ................................................................................. 268
ACADEMIC QUALIFICATION ...................................................................................... 269
NATIONALITY........................................................................................................... 269
AGE .......................................................................................................................... 269
PROHIBITION OF BIGAMY .......................................................................................... 269
GOOD CHARACTER ................................................................................................... 269
NO EXPULSION OR DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE ........................................................... 269
NO CONVICTION FOR ANY OFFENCE INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE......................... 269
NO INVOLVEMENT IN UNFAIR PRACTICES ................................................................. 270
GOOD HEALTH .......................................................................................................... 270
LANGUAGE ............................................................................................................... 270
12
666
113525/2018/NM
ASSAM ............................................................................................................................. 270
MANIPUR ......................................................................................................................... 271
ODISHA ............................................................................................................................ 272
WEST BENGAL................................................................................................................. 273
KARNATAKA.................................................................................................................... 274
TAMIL NADU ................................................................................................................... 275
CHHATTISGARH ............................................................................................................... 275
MADHYA PRADESH.......................................................................................................... 276
MAHARASHTRA ............................................................................................................... 276
GUJARAT ......................................................................................................................... 278
NEW DELHI ..................................................................................................................... 279
UTTAR PRADESH ............................................................................................................. 279
II. METHOD OF RECRUITMENT.................................................................................. 280
ASSAM ............................................................................................................................. 282
MANIPUR ......................................................................................................................... 285
ODISHA ............................................................................................................................ 287
WEST BENGAL................................................................................................................. 288
KARNATAKA.................................................................................................................... 288
TAMIL NADU ................................................................................................................... 289
CHHATTISGARH ............................................................................................................... 290
MADHYA PRADESH.......................................................................................................... 290
MAHARASHTRA ............................................................................................................... 290
GUJARAT ......................................................................................................................... 292
NEW DELHI ..................................................................................................................... 293
UTTAR PRADESH ............................................................................................................. 293
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................ 296
STRUCTURING OF NORMS OF DISPOSAL .............................................................................. 297
13
667
113525/2018/NM
QUANTITATIVE BENCHMARKS AND RATINGS SCALE .......................................................... 298
POLICY REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES .................................................. 298
POLICY REGARDING NON-DECISIONAL JUDICIAL WORK .................................................... 298
POLICY REGARDING DISPOSAL OF OLD CASES ................................................................... 299
POLICY REGARDING CONCESSION FOR LEAVE AVAILED ..................................................... 299
POLICY REGARDING CONCESSION TO NEWLY RECRUITED OFFICERS .................................. 299
POLICY ON CONTENTS OF ACR PROFORMA ........................................................................ 299
POLICY ON QUANTITATIVE YARDSTICK FOR RATINGS IN ACR PROFORMA ........................ 300
POLICY ON ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUE FOR ACR QUESTIONS............................................... 300
POLICY ON PROMOTION CRITERIA....................................................................................... 300
POLICY ON ASSESSMENT OF PROMOTION CRITERIA ............................................................ 301
14
668
113525/2018/NM
Index of Tables
Table Page
Number Description of Table No.
1 List of Identified States
30
2 Comparative Overview of Structure of Norms
39
3 Comparative Overview on Rating System
51
4 Comparative Overview of Rating Schemes
52
5 Rating System in Assam
53
6 Rating System in Manipur
54
7 Rating System in West Bengal-1
55
55
56
56
57
57
58
58
15 Rating System in Karnataka
59
16 Rating System in Tamil Nadu-1
60
61
61
62
62
63
63
63
64
65
26 Rating System in Chhattisgarh-1
65
27 Rating System in Chhattisgarh-2
65
15
669
113525/2018/NM
28 Rating System in Madhya Pradesh-1

66
29 Rating System in Madhya Pradesh-2
66
30 Rating System in Maharashtra
67
31 Rating System in Gujarat
68
32 Rating System in New Delhi
69
33 Additional Conditions for Ratings in West Bengal
71
34 Additional Weightage for Disposal of Old Cases in Tamil Nadu
90
35 Additional Weightage for Disposal of Old Cases in Chhattisgarh
90
Additional Weightage for Disposal of Old Cases in Madhya
36 Pradesh
91
37 Additional Weightage for Disposal of Old Cases in Maharashtra
91
38 Additional Weightage for Disposal of Old Cases in Gujarat
92
39 Additional Weightage for Disposal of Old Cases in Uttar Pradesh
92
Comparative Ratings Scale in Assam, New Delhi, Chhattisgarh
40 and Madhya Pradesh
107
41 States with 5 Points Rating Scale in ACR
140
42 States with 6 Points Rating Scale in ACR
141
43 Quantitative Yardstick for ACR in Assam
142
44 Quantitative Yardstick for ACR in Manipur
142
45 Quantitative Yardstick for ACR in Maharashtra
142
46 Quantitative Yardstick for ACR in Gujarat
142
47 Vacancy Break up in Maharashtra for Senior Civil Judge
148
48 Eligibility Conditions in Assam
152
49 Eligibility Conditions In Manipur
152
50 Eligibility Conditions in Odisha
153
51 Eligibility Conditions in West Bengal
153
52 Eligibility Conditions in Karnataka
154
53 Eligibility Conditions in Tamil Nadu
154
54 Eligibility Conditions in Chhattisgarh
155
55 Eligibility Conditions in Madhya Pradesh
155
56 Eligibility Conditions in Maharashtra
156
57 Eligibility Conditions in Gujarat
157
16
670
113525/2018/NM
58 Eligibility Conditions in New Delhi

157
59 Eligibility Conditions in Uttar Pradesh
158
60 Criteria For Promotion As Senior Civil Judge In Assam
163
61 Criteria For Promotion As Senior Civil Judge In Manipur
163
62 Criteria For Promotion As Senior Civil Judge In West Bengal
164
63 Criteria For Promotion As Senior Civil Judge In Karnataka
164
64 Criteria For Promotion As Senior Civil Judge In Tamil Nadu
165
65 Criteria For Promotion As Senior Civil Judge In Chhattisgarh
165
66 Criteria For Promotion As Senior Civil Judge In Madhya Pradesh
165
67 Criteria For Promotion As Senior Civil Judge In Maharashtra-1
166
68 Criteria For Promotion As Senior Civil Judge In Maharashtra-2
166
69 Criteria For Promotion As Senior Civil Judge In Gujarat
167
70 Criteria For Promotion As Senior Civil Judge In Uttar Pradesh
168
Assessment Technique For Criteria Of Promotion As Senior Civil
71 Judge In Assam
170
Assessment Of ACR In Assam For Promotion As Senior Civil
72 Judge
171
73 Judge In Manipur
171
Assessment of Judgements For Promotion As Senior Civil Judge
74 In Manipur
172
75 Judge In Karnataka
173
76 Evaluation Of Judgements For Senior Civil Judge In Karnataka
173
Assessment Of Disposal Records For Promotion As Senior Civil
77 Judge In Karnataka
174
78 Judge In Madhya Pradesh
174
79 Judge In Gujarat
176
Assessment Of ACR For Promotion As Senior Civil Judge in
80 Gujarat
177
17
671
113525/2018/NM
Assessment Of Disposal Records For Promotion As Senior Civil

81 Judge In Gujarat
177
82 Evaluation Of Judgements For Senior Civil Judge In Gujarat
178
83 Criteria For Regular Promotion As District Judge In Assam
182
84 Criteria For Regular Promotion As District Judge In Manipur
183
85 Criteria For Regular Promotion As District Judge In Odisha
183
86 Criteria For Regular Promotion As District Judge In West Bengal
183
87 Criteria For Regular Promotion As District Judge In Karnataka
183
88 Criteria For Regular Promotion As District Judge In Tamil Nadu
184
89 Criteria For Regular Promotion As District Judge In Chhattisgarh
184
Criteria For Regular Promotion As District Judge In Madhya
90 Pradesh
185
91 Criteria For Regular Promotion As District Judge In Maharashtra
185
92 Criteria For Regular Promotion As District Judge In Gujarat
186
93 Criteria For Regular Promotion As District Judge In Uttar Pradesh
186
Assessment Technique Of Criteria For Regular Promotion As
94 District Judge In Assam
188
95 District Judge In Manipur
188
96 District Judge In Odisha
189
97 District Judge In West Bengal
189
98 District Judge In Karnataka
190
99 District Judge In Tamil Nadu
190
100 District Judge In Chhattisgarh
191
101 District Judge In Madhya Pradesh
191
102 District Judge In Maharashtra
192
18
672
113525/2018/NM

103 District Judge In Gujarat
193
Assessment Of ACR for Regular Promotion As District Judge In
104 Gujarat
194
105 Assessment of Disposal Records in Gujarat
194
106 Assessment of Judgements in Gujarat
195
Assessment Technique of Criteria For Regular Promotion As
107 District Judge in Uttar Pradesh
195
Assessment Of ACR for Regular Promotion As District Judge In
108 Uttar Pradesh
196
109 Criteria for Accelerated Promotion As District Judge in Assam
200
110 Criteria for Accelerated Promotion As District Judge in Manipur
201
111 Criteria for Accelerated Promotion As District Judge in Odisha
201
Criteria for Accelerated Promotion As District Judge in West
112 Bengal
201
113 Criteria for Accelerated Promotion As District Judge in Karnataka
201
Criteria for Accelerated Promotion As District Judge in Tamil
114 Nadu
202
Criteria for Accelerated Promotion As District Judge in
115 Chhattisgarh
203
Criteria for Accelerated Promotion As District Judge in Madhya
116 Pradesh
203
Criteria for Accelerated Promotion As District Judge in
117 Maharashtra
203
118 Criteria for Accelerated Promotion As District Judge in Gujarat
204
Criteria for Accelerated Promotion As District Judge in New
119 Delhi
204
Criteria for Accelerated Promotion As District Judge in Uttar
120 Pradesh
204
Assessment Technique of Criteria for Accelerated Promotion As
121 District Judge in Assam
207
122 District Judge in Manipur
208
19
673
113525/2018/NM

123 District Judge in Odisha
209
Assessment of ACR for Accelerated Promotion As District Judge
124 in Odisha
209
125 District Judge in West Bengal
210
126 District Judge in Karnataka
210
127 District Judge in Tamil Nadu
211
128 District Judge in Chhattisgarh
211
129 District Judge in Madhya Pradesh
212
Assessment of Past Performance for Accelerated Promotion As
212
Assessment of ACR for Accelerated Promotion As District Judge
131 in Madhya Pradesh
212
Assessment of Disposal Records for Accelerated Promotion As
213
133 District Judge in Maharashtra
213
134 District Judge in Gujarat
214
135 District Judge in New Delhi
215
136 District Judge in Uttar Pradesh
215
137 Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment As Civil Judge in Assam
238
138 Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Manipur
239
139 Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Odisha
240
140 Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Karnataka
241
20
674
113525/2018/NM
Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Tamil

141 Nadu
242
Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as Civil Judge in
142 Chhattisgarh
243
Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Madhya
143 Pradesh
244
Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as Civil Judge in
144 Maharashtra
245
145 Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Gujarat
247
Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as Civil Judge in New
146 Delhi
247
Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Uttar
147 Pradesh
248
Comparative Overview of Scheme of Recruitment for Civil
148 Judges
249
149 Scheme of Recruitment of Civil Judges in Assam
251
Scheme of Main Examination for Recruitment as Civil Judge in
150 Assam
252
151 Scheme of Viva for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Assam
252
152 Parameters of Viva for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Assam
252
153 Scheme of Grades for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Assam
253
154 Scheme of Recruitment of Civil Judges in Manipur
254
155 Manipur
254
156 Scheme of Viva for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Manipur
255
157 Parameters of Viva for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Manipur
255
158 Scheme of Grades for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Manipur
256
159 Scheme of Recruitment of Civil Judges in Odisha
257
160 Odisha
257
161 Scheme of Recruitment of Civil Judges in West Bengal
258
Scheme of Preliminary Examination for Recruitment as Civil
162 Judge in West Bengal
258
21
675
113525/2018/NM

163 West Bengal
259
164 Scheme of Recruitment of Civil Judges in West Karnataka
260
165 Karnataka
260
166 Scheme of Viva for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Karnataka
261
167 Scheme of Recruitment of Civil Judges in Tamil Nadu
261
168 Tamil Nadu
262
169 Parameters of Viva for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Tamil Nadu
262
170 Scheme of Recruitment of Civil Judges in Chhattisgarh
263
171 Scheme of Recruitment of Civil Judges in Madhya Pradesh
263
172 Scheme of Recruitment of Civil Judges in Maharashtra
264
173 Maharashtra
264
174 Scheme of Viva for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Maharashtra
265
175 Scheme of Recruitment of Civil Judges in Gujarat
265
Scheme of Preliminary Examination, Main Examination and Viva
176 for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Gujarat
266
177 Scheme of Recruitment of Civil Judges in Uttar Pradesh
266
178 Scheme of Main Examination and Viva in Uttar Pradesh
267
179 Other Criteria for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Uttar Pradesh
267
180 Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as District Judge in Assam
270
Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as District Judge in
181 Manipur
271
182 Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as District Judge in Odisha
272
Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as District Judge in West
183 Bengal
273
184 Karnataka
274
Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as District Judge in Tamil
185 Nadu
275
22
676
113525/2018/NM

186 Chhattisgarh
275
187 Madhya Pradesh
276
188 Maharashtra
276
189 Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as District Judge in Gujarat
278
Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as District Judge in New
190 Delhi
279
Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as District Judge in Uttar
191 Pradesh
279
Comparative Overview of Scheme of Recruitment for District
192 Judges
280
193 Scheme of Recruitment of District Judges in Assam
282
Scheme of Main Examination and Viva for Recruitment as
194 District Judge in Assam
283
195 Parameters of Viva for Recruitment as District Judge in Assam
283
196 System of Grades for Recruitment as District Judge in Assam
284
197 Scheme of Recruitment of District Judges in Manipur
285
198 District Judge in Manipur
285
199 Parameters of Viva for Recruitment as District Judge in Manipur
286
200 Grading System for Recruitment as District Judge in Manipur
286
201 Scheme of Recruitment of District Judges in Odisha
287
Scheme of Main Examination for Recruitment as District Judge in
202 Odisha
288
203 Scheme of Recruitment of District Judges in Karnataka
288
204 District Judge in Karnataka
289
205 Scheme of Recruitment of District Judges in Tamil Nadu
289
206 Scheme of Recruitment of District Judges in Chhattisgarh
290
207 Scheme of Recruitment of District Judges in Madhya Pradesh
290
208 Scheme of Recruitment of District Judges in Maharashtra
291
23
677
113525/2018/NM

209 Maharashtra
291
Parameters of Viva for Recruitment as District Judge in
210 Maharashtra
291
211 Scheme of Recruitment of District Judges in Gujarat
292
212 Scheme of Recruitment of District Judges in New Delhi
293
213 Scheme of Recruitment as District Judges in Uttar Pradesh
293
Scheme of Preliminary Examination for Recruitment as District
214 Judge in Uttar Pradesh
294
215 Uttar Pradesh
294
216 Other Criteria for Recruitment as District Judge in Uttar Pradesh
295
24
678
113525/2018/NM
Index of Figures
Figure 1 Structure of Norms in Assam .................................................................................... 41

Figure 2 Structure of Norms in Manipur ................................................................................. 41
Figure 3 Structure of Norms in Odisha .................................................................................... 42
Figure 4 Structure of Norms in West Bengal........................................................................... 43
Figure 5 Structure of Norms in Karnataka ............................................................................... 43
Figure 6 Structure of Norms in Tamil Nadu ............................................................................ 44
Figure 7 Structure of Norms in Chhattisgarh ........................................................................... 44
Figure 8 Structure of Norms in Madhya Pradesh .................................................................... 45
Figure 9 Structure of Norms in Maharashtra ........................................................................... 45
Figure 10 Structure of Norms in Gujarat ................................................................................. 46
Figure 11 Structure of Norms in New Delhi ............................................................................ 46
Figure 12 Structure of Norms in Uttar Pradesh ....................................................................... 47
Figure 13 Comparative Workload-1 in Odisha, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka ........................ 106
Figure 14 Comparative Workload-2 in Odisha, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka ........................ 106
Figure 15 Standard Rating Scale in New Delhi, Assam, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh108
Figure 16 Adjusted Rating Scale in New Delhi, Assam, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh
................................................................................................................................................ 109
Figure 17 Comparative Workload-1 in New Delhi, Assam, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh
................................................................................................................................................ 110
................................................................................................................................................ 111
................................................................................................................................................ 111
................................................................................................................................................ 112
................................................................................................................................................ 112
................................................................................................................................................ 113
................................................................................................................................................ 114
25
679
113525/2018/NM
................................................................................................................................................ 114
................................................................................................................................................ 115
Figure 26 Comparative Workload-10 in New Delhi, Assam, Chhattisgarh and Madhya
Pradesh ................................................................................................................................... 116
Figure 27 Contents of ACR in Assam ................................................................................... 131
Figure 28 Contents of ACR in Manipur ................................................................................ 132
Figure 29Contents of ACR in Odisha-1................................................................................. 132
Figure 30Contents of ACR in Odisha-2................................................................................. 133
Figure 31Contents of ACR in Karnataka ............................................................................... 133
Figure 32Contents of ACR in Tamil Nadu ............................................................................ 134
Figure 33Contents of ACR in Chhattisgarh ........................................................................... 134
Figure 34Contents of ACR in Madhya Pradesh .................................................................... 135
Figure 35 Contents of ACR in Maharashtra-1 ....................................................................... 136
Figure 36 Contents of ACR in Maharashtra-2 ....................................................................... 136
Figure 37 Contents of ACR in Gujarat-1, 2 and 3 ................................................................. 137
Figure 38 Contents of ACR in Gujarat-4 ............................................................................... 138
Figure 39 Contents of ACR in New Delhi ............................................................................. 138
Figure 40 Contents of ACR in Uttar Pradesh ........................................................................ 139
Figure 41 Comparative Distribution of ACR Contents ......................................................... 139
Figure 42 Comparative Distribution of Weightage of ACR Contents ................................... 143
Figure 43 Overview of Promotion Structure ......................................................................... 147
Figure 44 Breakup of Vacancy for Appointment as District Judges ..................................... 149
Figure 45 Breakup of Vacancy for Appointment as District Judges in Assam, Manipur and
Madhya Pradesh ..................................................................................................................... 149
Figure 46 Quantitative Weightage of Evaluation of Judgements for Promotion as Senior Civil
Judge ...................................................................................................................................... 160
Figure 47 Quantitative Weightage of ACRs for Promotion as Senior Civil Judge ............... 161
Figure 48 Quantitative Weightage of Disposal Records for Promotion as Senior Civil Judge
................................................................................................................................................ 162
Figure 49 Quantitative Weightage of ACRs for Regular Promotion as District Judge ......... 180
Figure 50 Quantitative Weightage of Evaluation of Judgements for Regular Promotion as
District Judge ......................................................................................................................... 181
26
680
113525/2018/NM
Figure 51 Quantitative Weightage of Limited Competitive Examination for Accelerated

Promotion as District Judge ................................................................................................... 197
Figure 52 Quantitative Weightage of Viva Voce for Accelerated Promotion as District Judge
................................................................................................................................................ 198
Figure 53 Quantitative Weightage of Evaluation of Judgements for Accelerated Promotion as
District Judge ......................................................................................................................... 199
Figure 54 Quantitative Weightage of ACRs for Accelerated Promotion as District Judge... 199
Figure 55 Details of Limited Competitive Examination........................................................ 205
Figure 56 Survey Results- Awareness about Existing Performance Evaluation System ...... 218
Figure 57 Survey Results- Usefulness of Periodic Performance Evaluation ......................... 219
Figure 58 Average Rating- Usefulness of Periodic Performance Evaluation........................ 219
Figure 59 Survey Results- Objectivity in Annual Confidential Records ............................... 220
Figure 60 Survey Results- Comprehensiveness of Norms of Disposal ................................. 220
Figure 61 Survey Results- Objectivity in Parameters of Assessment.................................... 221
Figure 62 Average Rating- Objectivity in Parameters of Assessment .................................. 221
Figure 63 Survey Results- Transparency of the Evaluation Process ..................................... 222
Figure 64 Average Rating- Transparency of the Evaluation Process .................................... 222
Figure 65 Survey Results- Communication of Performance Evaluation Results .................. 223
Figure 66 Average Rating- Communication of Performance Evaluation Results ................. 223
Figure 67 Survey Results- Encouraging Qualitative Performance ........................................ 224
Figure 68 Average Rating- Encouraging Qualitative Performance ....................................... 224
Figure 69 Survey Results- Dissemination of Evaluation Results .......................................... 225
Figure 70 Survey Results- Promotion as a Reward for Better Performing Judges ................ 225
Figure 71 Survey Results- Transparency in Promotion Schemes .......................................... 226
Figure 72 Average Rating- Transparency in Promotion Schemes......................................... 226
Figure 73 Survey Results- Merit Cum Seniority as a Criterion for Promotion ..................... 227
Figure 74 Average Rating- Merit Cum Seniority as a Criterion for Promotion .................... 227
Figure 75 Survey Results- Merit as a Criterion for Promotion.............................................. 228
Figure 76 Average Rating- Merit as a Criterion for Promotion............................................. 228
Figure 77 Survey Results- Limited Competitive Examinations as Sufficient Test of Merit . 229
Figure 78 Scheme of Main Examination and Viva for Direct recruitment as Civil Judges .. 251
Figure 79 Scheme of Main Examination and Viva for Direct Recruitment as District Judge
................................................................................................................................................ 282
27
681
113525/2018/NM
Performance Evaluation and Promotion Schemes of Judicial

Offices in India
A Comparative Report
28
682
113525/2018/NM
Introduction
The appointment and performance of judges in the higher judiciary in India (High Courts and
the Supreme Court) have been in the limelight in recent times. There also exists a wealth of
scholarship and literature on various issues pertaining to the selection of personnel of higher
judiciary. However, the foundation of judicial system primarily lies with the subordinate
judiciary who were more intimately connected with the dispensation of justice at the first
instance.
There has been lack of comprehensive field research in relation to the judicial system and
with special reference to the subordinate judiciary in India. The current research deals with
two critical aspects concerning the subordinate judicial system in India;
1. Performance Appraisal and

2. Promotion Schemes
Both these issues are closely linked to the smooth functioning of the judicial system. The
criteria and methodology of performance evaluation reflects not only the nature and values in
the judicial system, but also an important factor for justice delivery. Similarly, the promotion
and the assessment methodology shows the kind of judicial qualities which the system is
recognising to reward.
An objective and transparent system in these respects is required for creative and innovative
legal minds to opt the judiciary as a preferred profession.
The objectives of this research are;
1. To conduct a comparative analysis of the performance appraisal mechanism and

schemes of promotion of subordinate judiciary.
2. To identify the prevalent best practices and model mechanisms of performance
appraisal and schemes of promotion of subordinate judiciary and
3. To make recommendations on the possibility of implementing uniform standards
and policies for performance appraisal and schemes of promotion of subordinate
judiciary in different states in India.
The endeavour has been to assess the degree of objectivity in the policies which are prevalent
in the different states.
29
683
113525/2018/NM
For the purposes of this research, the existing policies in Twelve (12) States were analysed.
These states were identified primarily on the basis of logistical limitations and also on the
principle of geographical representation. The states have been identified from the following
parts of India; Eastern India, Western India, Northern India, Southern India, North-Eastern
region and Central India.
Table 1- List of Identified States
Odisha West Bengal
Assam Manipur
Karnataka Tamil Nadu
Chhattisgarh Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra Gujarat
New Delhi Uttar Pradesh
Comparative Framework for Analysis of Performance Appraisal System
The systems of performance appraisal in different states have been analysed from two
perspectives; Norms of Disposal and Performance Assessment through Annual Confidential
Records
The schemes of promotion have been analysed from the following primary perspectives;
1. Eligibility Conditions
2. Criteria of Promotion
3. Assessment of Promotion Criteria
In addition to the analysis of the existing policies which forms the substantial core of the
report, a survey has also been administered among the judicial officers of different states to
assess the problems and challenges concerning the existing policies.
30
684
113525/2018/NM
The main concern of the research consisted of matters pertaining to serving judicial officers
and not on how they are recruited. However, in the process of compiling the relevant
regulations in each state concerning performance appraisal and schemes of promotion, we
found that we have data regarding direct recruitment rules of most of the states in the
depository of official policies shared with us. Thus, we have also provided a brief
comparative overview of the system of direct recruitment in various states.
This report has addressed the following dimensions;
1. A comprehensive assessment on the systems of performance appraisal and schemes of

promotion of the judges of subordinate judiciary prevalent in the identified states.
2. A comparative examination of the policies and regulations prevalent in the identified
states.
3. Recommendations on the reforms which can be adopted to improve the efficiency and
transparency of the performance appraisal mechanisms and schemes of promotion in
each state.
4. Recommendations on the possibility of evolving certain principles which can be
adopted and implemented uniformly in different states.
5. An analysis of the obstacles faced in the implementation of the existing schemes.
The information in the nature of the prevailing official policies in each state was sourced
from the respective High Courts in each state. Apart from few verbal and telephonic
clarifications, the core analysis in this report is based on the official policies shared with us in
the form of the following documents;
31
685
113525/2018/NM
Assam
1. Assam Judicial Service Rules, 2003

2. Meeting report of the Committee consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh,
Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.D. Agarwal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Goswami held on 10
February 2012 to ascertain the criteria for promotion to Grade II from Grade III held
at 5:30 pm in the office chamber of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Hrishikesh Roy.
3. The Guwahati High Court Annual Confidential Report of Judicial
Officers of Assam Judicial Service
4. Criteria for Assessment of work done, 2011
5. Proceedings of the meeting of the full court held on 15.07.2014 at 4:30 pm in the
Conference Hall of the Guwahati High Court
6. List of Hon’ble Judges’ Committees as on 03.02.2017
7. Minutes of the Full Court Meeting held on 20.02.2012 at 11:30 am
Manipur
1. The Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005

2. Letter dated 27.07.2017 undersigned by the Registrar General, The High Court of
Manipur at Imphal.
3. The High Court of Manipur Confidential Report of Judicial Officers
4. Question paper of Limited Departmental Examination, 2013
5. Mutum Seityaban Singh v State of Manipur
6. Norms of disposal, 2014
Odisha
1. Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007
2. Booklet for recording CCR of Judicial Officers dated 7.10.1999
3. Yardstick for judicial officers, 2004
4. Circular on Incentive for old cases, 2000
32
686
113525/2018/NM
West Bengal
1. West Bengal Judicial (Condition of Service) Rules, 2004

2. Order dated 04.01.2007 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Malik
Mazhar Sultan’s case.
3. Letter no 2649-G by Shri Sugato Majumdar dated 04.07.2016 to NLUO
4. Assessment of Units
Karnataka
1. Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules 2004,

2. Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules 2011
3. Letter dated 28.4.2016 issued by the Registrar General of the Karnataka High Court to
National Law University Odisha
4. ACR Proforma
5. Norms of disposal, 2004,2008,2016
Tamil Nadu
1. Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007
2. Letter Roc.No. 2475/2016/RG-Con.B2 by T.Ravindran dated 01.07.2016
3. Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Confidential Records) Rules, 2014
4. ACR proforma as given in the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Confidential
Records) Rules, 2014
Chhattisgarh
1. Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules,

2006
2. Chhattisgarh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment & Conditions of Service) Rules,
2006
33
687
113525/2018/NM
3. High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur Proforma relating to Confidential Report of

Judicial Officers
4. Chhattisgarh Judicial Officers (Confidential Rolls) Regulations, 2015
5. Limited Competitive Examination question papers of 2013 and 2014
6. Criteria for assessment of wok done, 2015
Madhya Pradesh
1. Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service)

Rules, 1994 ,
2. Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules,
1994, Order,
3. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, No. 1077/Confd/2015, II-2-21/63 (Pt-IV) dated 18
November 2015.
4. Scheme of Examination for Promotion of District Judge (Entry Level) under Rule
5(1)(b) Through Limited Competitive Exam-2016
5. Scheme of Suitability Test- 2016 of Civil Judges (Sr. Division) for promotion as
District Judge (Entry Level)
6. The M.P High Court Proforma relating to Confidential Report of Judicial Officers
7. Criteria for assessment of wok done, 2014
Maharashtra
1. Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008

2. Final Draft of the ACR Proforma as directed in the meeting dated 14.12.2016
34
688
113525/2018/NM
Gujarat
1. The Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005.

2. This Rules has been further amended by the Gujarat State Judicial Service
(Amendment) Rules, 2011, the Gujarat State Judicial Service(Amendment) Rules,
2014, the Gujarat State Judicial Service (Amendment) Rules, 2015 and the Gujarat
State Judicial Service (2nd Amendment) Rules, 2015.
3. Resolution dated 08/03/1969 of the Government of Gujarat in General Administration
Department
4. Instructions issued by the High Court of Gujarat for writing Annual Confidential
Reports in respect of Judicial Officers of the State of Gujarat
5. Annual Confidential Reports Forms in respect of Civil Judges and Senior Civil Judges
which is to be submitted by concerned Principal District Judges and format of Self-
Appraisal and Annual Confidential Reports in respect of Judges working in the
amalgamated cadre of District Judges
6. Form I to IV of Annual Confidential Reports in respect of Judicial Officers appointed
on Probation
7. Statement showing the institution, disposal and pendency of the civil and criminal
cases in the district judiciary of the state during the period from 01/12/2016 to
31/12/2016
9. Extract of the report of committee consisting of three Hon’ble Judges of Gujarat High
Court dated 28.03.2014 for promotion to the cadre of Senior Civil Judge as given in
Vinay Kumar s/o Hukum Chand Sharma v High Court of Gujarat (accessed from
open sources)
10. Extract of the report of committee consisting of three Hon’ble Judges of Gujarat High
Court dated 17.04.2013 for promotion to the cadre of District Judge as given in Vinay
Kumar s/o Hukum Chand Sharma v High Court of Gujarat
New Delhi
1. Delhi Judicial Service Rules 1970,

2. Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules 1970 (as amended upto 15.2.2013)
35
689
113525/2018/NM
3. Criteria for Assessment of Work Done

4. ACR proforma
Uttar Pradesh
1. The Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2001.
2. The Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975
3. ACR proforma as amended on 28 August 2015
4. Limited Competitive Examination question papers of 2014 and 2016
5. Quantum of work for Judicial Officers, 2016
36
690
113525/2018/NM
Analysis of Quantitative Norms Prescribed for Judicial Officers
In all states, judicial officers are expected to fulfil certain quantitative targets in terms of the
work they do. Typically, they are known as ‘Norms’,’ Yardstick’ or ‘Criteria for Assessment
of Work Done’. For the sake of convenience, we have uniformly used the term ‘Norms’ in
this report. There is great variety in the manner in which Norms have been prescribed in
different states. The different aspects of the prescribed norms have been addressed under the
following broad conceptual headings;
1. Structure of the Norms

2. Nature of the Norms
3. The Rating System
4. Policy Regarding Additional Conditions for Quantitative Benchmark
5. Policy Regarding Non-Decisional Judicial Work
6. Policy Regarding Administrative Responsibilities
7. Policy Regarding Disposal of Old Cases
8. Policy Regarding Incentive Weightage
9. Policy Regarding Concession for Leave Availed
10. Policy Regarding Concession for Newly Recruited Officers
A. Structure of the Norms
Structure of the Norms refers to the manner in which norms have been prescribed in different
States. In majority of the States (Assam, Odisha, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh,
Chhattisgarh, New Delhi, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Gujarat) a list of specific entries is
provided in relation to different categories of judges. Each entry is attributed a quantitative
weightage. The entries can be in the form of description of cases, other judicial work or even
administrative work of a judge. Thus, for each category of judges mentioned in the Norms, a
separate list of entries with quantitative weightage is applicable. The assessment of Norms in
37
691
113525/2018/NM
relation to a judge is then made only in reference to the quantitative weightage of the entries
specified for his/her category.
The number of categories specified in different States varies. For example, in Maharashtra,
18 different categories of judges have been mentioned. In Chhattisgarh, all judicial officers
have been covered under 2 broad categories.
The number of entries which are specified under different categories of judges in a State
varies significantly. When we can count the number of entries, each entry which has been
attributed a quantitative weightage has been counted separately. For example, in the Category
of Higher Judicial Service, Clause 1 titled ‘Sessions Trial’ in the sub-heading ‘Criminal’ has
5 sub-clauses. The sub-clauses deal with different types of Sessions Trials such as Culpable
Homicide, Cases under Explosive Substance Act etc. A separate quantitative weightage has
been specified in relation to each sub-clause. Thus, Clause 1 is counted as 5 entries. Thus,
while the category of District and Sessions Court (Civil Matters) in Maharashtra has 41
entries, the category of School Tribunals in Maharashtra has 4 entries. In Gujarat, the
category of Senior Civil Judges has 33 entries and the category of Judges, Family Courts has
9 entries.
There is also a substantial disparity in the number of entries and the details of entries across
different States. For example, while in New Delhi, there are a total of 102 entries, there are
69 entries in Odisha. In Odisha, all Sessions Cases are given the same quantitative weightage.
On the other hand, different kinds of Sessions cases are given separate quantitative weightage
under different entries in states like Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh. While
Sessions Cases have been divided into 2 types in Maharashtra, it has been divided into 5
types in Madhya Pradesh and into 7 types in Chhattisgarh.
This approach of category wise distribution of entries with quantitative weightage has a
drawback. Quite often it results in the same or similar entries being repeatedly mentioned
under different categories of judges. At times, the same or similar entries for different
categories of judges carry different quantitative weightage. However, more often, such entries
carry the same quantitative weightage. For example, in Gujarat, the disposal of a Session
Case carries a quantitative weightage of ‘3.00 working days’ for both Judges of the City Civil
Court and District and Sessions Judges. In Maharashtra, References pertaining to Wage
38
692
113525/2018/NM
Demands under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1972 carry a quantitative weightage of ‘5.00
units’ for both Industrial Courts and Labour Courts. This results in considerable redundancy
in the Norms. At times, it can appear fragmented. For example, in order to know the
quantitative weightage of Maintenance cases under Section 125 of Cr.PC in a State, one has
to check the list of entries under multiple categories of judges to ascertain if it has a single
quantitative weightage. When we discount such redundancy, the number of entries listed in
the Norms of a State change substantially. For example, without such redundancy, the
number of entries in Maharashtra falls from 420 to 348. In West Bengal, it falls from 219 to
136.
Table 2- Comparative Overview of Structure of Norms
State Categories of Judges Number of Entries with

Quantitative Weightage
Assam 5 116
Manipur Common List for all judges 73
Odisha 8 76
West Bengal 4 219
Karnataka 10 69
Tamil Nadu Common List for all judges 95
Chhattisgarh 2 145
Madhya Pradesh 2 157
Maharashtra 18 420
Gujarat 12 353
New Delhi 2 102
Uttar Pradesh Common List for all judges 67
39
693
113525/2018/NM
Best Practice
In terms of arranging the entries, the approach adopted in Tamil Nadu provides a more neat
structure. In Tamil Nadu, a total of 95 entries are divided into the following 4 categories
which apply to all judicial officers;
1. Proceedings relating to Criminal Laws
2. Proceedings relating to Civil Laws
3. Proceedings relating to Special Laws
4. Other Categories
A similar approach has also been adopted in Uttar Pradesh. With a conceptually segregated
list, there is no scope of redundancy in the entries. While the categories of conceptual
headings can be expanded in more nuanced detailed, it is a better approach than listing the
headings under different categories of judges which would lead to unavoidable redundancy.
However, in terms of the range of entries, the most exhaustive list can be seen in
Maharashtra. Even after taking the redundancies into account, there are as many as 348
separate entries for which quantitative weightage has been specifically allotted.
Below is the tabular representation of the structure of norms in different States;
40
694
113525/2018/NM
Assam
Entries with Quantitative Weightage

40
35
30
25
20 38
15 Entries with Quantitative
20 21 22 Weightage
10 15
5
0
D&SJ/ Grade I Grade II CJM/ Munsif
AD&SJ/ Officers Officers ACJM/
Special (Civil (Civil JMFC/ SPL
Judge Matters) Judge) JMFC
Figure 1 Structure of Norms in Assam
Manipur
80
70
60
Entries with Quantitative
50
73 Weightage
40
30
20
10
0
All Judicial Officers
Figure 2 Structure of Norms in Manipur
41
695
113525/2018/NM
Odisha

35
30
25
20
15 31
10
13 11
5 6 6
2 4 1 Entries with Quantitative
0
Weightage
Figure 3 Structure of Norms in Odisha
The category of ‘Contested Criminal Cases for Judicial Magistrates’ also mentions the
number of cases to be disposed in a year by Chief Judicial Magistrate (250), SDJM taking
cognizance (200) and Judicial Magistrate/SDJM not taking cognizance (350)
42
696
113525/2018/NM
West Bengal
100
90
80
70
60
50 93
40
30 59
42
20
25
10
0
DJ/FTC Judge Civil Civil Judge Judicial
Judge(SD) (JD) Magistrates
Figure 4 Structure of Norms in West Bengal

B
Karnataka

14
12
10
8
6 12 12 13 12
4 8
2 4 3 3
0 1 1 Entries with Quantitative
Weightage
Figure 5 Structure of Norms in Karnataka
43
697
113525/2018/NM
Tamil Nadu
35
30
25
20
32 30 Entries with Quantitative
15 28 Weightage
10
5
5
0
Criminal Civil Laws Special Laws Other
Laws Categories
Figure 6 Structure of Norms in Tamil Nadu
Chhattisgarh
80
70
60
50
Entries with Quantitative
40 72 72 Weightage
30
20
10
0
Higher Judicial Service Lower Judicial Service
Figure 7 Structure of Norms in Chhattisgarh
44
698
113525/2018/NM
Madhya Pradesh
84
82
80
78
Weightage
74
72 74
70
68
Higher Judicial Service Civil Judges/ Judicial
Magistrate
Figure 8 Structure of Norms in Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra

45
40
35
30
25
20 41 37 36
15 30 28 27 32 34
10 21 20 16 20 20 16
14 10 14
5 4
Civil Judge, Senior…
Motor Accident Claims…

Industrial Courts in…
Co-operative…
District and Sessions…
District and Sessions…
Chief Judicial…
Civil Judge, Junior…
City Civil and Sessions…
City Civil and Sessions…
Small Causes Court…
Court of Small…
Metropolitan…
Family Courts in the…
Labour Courts in the…
School Tribunals in the…

Charity Commissioner…
Assistant Charity…
Weightage
Figure 9 Structure of Norms in Maharashtra
45
699
113525/2018/NM
Gujarat

90
80
70
60
50
40 86
75
30
20 33 33 37 36 30
10 17 13 20
0
Weightage
Figure 10 Structure of Norms in Gujarat
New Delhi
70
60
50

61 Weightage
30
41
20
10
0
Higher Judicial service Delhi Judicial Services
Figure 11 Structure of Norms in New Delhi
46
700
113525/2018/NM
Uttar Pradesh
30
25
20

26
Weightage
10
12
5
0
Schedule ‘A’ Schedule ‘B’ Schedule ‘C’
(Criminal Work) (Civil Work)
Figure 12 Structure of Norms in Uttar Pradesh
47
701
113525/2018/NM
B. Nature of the Norms
Nature of Norms refers the quantitative description of the entries. In this respect, the Norms
in different States can be divided into 3 types;
1. Units System
2. Working Day System
3. Case-Conversion System.
i. Units System
This system is followed in the following States;

1. New Delhi
2. West Bengal
3. Chhattisgarh
4. Madhya Pradesh
5. Assam
6. Manipur
7. Tamil Nadu
8. Maharashtra
In this system, each entry in the Norms is described as a unit, number of units or some
fraction of a unit. The work done by a judge is then assessed in term of the aggregate of units
earned by him in a day, month, quarter or a year. For example, in Chhattisgarh, a judicial
officer in Higher Judicial Service is rated poor if his daily output is less than 5 units. In New
Delhi a judicial officer is rated ‘Inadequate’ if his quarterly output is less than 300 units.
ii. Working Day System
This system is followed in the following States;

1. Gujarat
2. Odisha
3. Uttar Pradesh
48
702
113525/2018/NM
In this system, each entry in the Norms is described as a working day, number of working
days or a certain fraction of a working day. Judicial officers are expected to accomplish work
equivalent to the prescribed number of working days. For example, in Odisha, a judicial
officer is expected to achieve work output equivalent to 240 working days in a year. In
Gujarat, a judicial officer is expected to produce work equivalent to 24 working days in a
month.
iii. Case-Conversion System
This system is followed in Karnataka.
In this system, entries are described in the form of a conversion ratio of base case. For
example, for District and Sessions Judges, the basic case category is Sessions case. As per the
norms, each sessions case is equivalent to five criminal appeals, twelve criminal revision
petitions etc. In a month, a District and Sessions Judge has to dispose of 10 Sessions cases or
equivalent number of criminal appeals revision petitions etc. For some categories of judges,
the nomenclature of ‘unit’ has also been adopted. However, even in such situations, entries
are detailed in the form of a conversion ratio. For example, for judges of Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate Courts in Bangalore city, the expectation is of 10 units per month wherein 1 unit
is deemed equivalent of 5 IPC cases by considered judgements, 12 criminal cases under other
laws etc.
Best Practice
The manner in which the quantitative weightage is expressed is not fundamental to the
assessment of the workload of judicial officers. The number of entries which are identified
for quantitative weightage, the manner in which such entries are structured and the amount of
weightage awarded to different entries is of greater importance. Whether the entries are
expressed as ‘units’ or ‘working days’ does not make a core difference at the time of
assessing the work of a judge if the weightage of similar entries is equalised. However, it
would be ideal if there could be uniformity in this respect. Thus, keeping line with the
practice in majority of the States, a Units system could be preferred to define the quantitative
49
703
113525/2018/NM
weightage. This would ensure that comparison of the Norms in the States would be less
complicated than it is at present.
C. The Rating System
The rating system refers to the evaluation parameters in relation to the quantitative workload
of judicial officers. The rating system prevalent in a State prescribes the quantitative
benchmark that is expected of judicial officers and how they are rated for the workload
achieved by them.
i. Timeline of Quantitative Benchmark
There is variance in terms of the time-span in relation to which a rating system is expressed.
For example, the rating system in Chhattisgarh mentions the daily workload of a judicial
officer. In Odisha, the annual workload of judicial officers is mentioned. A monthly workload
is mentioned in Tamil Nadu whereas in New Delhi, a quarterly workload is mentioned. It
needs to be noted that these variations are simply in relation to the manner in which the rating
system is expressed in the Norms of a state. Usually, assessment of workload is done on
monthly, quarterly and yearly basis. However, the Norms in the different States typically
explain the rating system only in any one of the 4 options; daily, monthly, quarterly and
yearly.
ii. Ratings Scale
While some States (Odisha, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu) only prescribe a specific quantitative
benchmark the judicial officers are expected to achieve, other States usually provide a ratings
scale with different gradings for different degrees of quantitative achievement. For example,
in Tamil Nadu, a monthly quantitative benchmark is prescribed and judges are expected to
achieve that benchmark. There is no specific prescription to deal with the possibility of a
judicial officer performing well above that benchmark. So when the quantitative benchmark
is 15 units a month, there is no official prescription to separately acknowledge a judge who
50
704
113525/2018/NM
has earned 16 units and a judge who has earned 22 units. On the other hand, in New Delhi 4
separate benchmarks have been mentioned on the basis of which a judicial officer may be
rated Inadequate, Good, Very Good or Outstanding.
There is variation in the details of the ratings scale as well. For example, while the 4 point
ratings scale of New Delhi has the gradations of Inadequate, Good, Very Good and
Outstanding, the 4 point ratings scale of Madhya Pradesh has the gradations of Poor,
Average, Good and Very Good. The most elaborate scheme of rating is followed in the State
of Gujarat. While most States adopt a 4 point, 5 point or 6 point ratings scale, in Gujarat,
judicial officers are graded on a 8 point ratings scale of Poor, Inadequate, Just Adequate,
Adequate, Good, Very Good, Excellent and Outstanding.
Table 3- Comparative Overview on Rating Systems
Singular 4 Point Rating 5 Point Rating 6 Point Rating 8 Point Rating

Benchmark Scale Scale Scale Scale
Odisha Assam Manipur Maharashtra Gujarat
Karnataka Chhattisgarh West Bengal West Bengal
(for some (for some
categories) categories)
Tamil Nadu Madhya Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh New Delhi
iii. Single/Multiple Rating Scheme
While some States, have a single rating scheme for all the judicial officers, in other States,
separate benchmarks are prescribed for different categories of judicial officers. For example,
the 8 point ratings scale in Gujarat is applicable to all judicial officers in the State. Thus, if a
judicial officer has achieved 100%-125% of Norms, he/she will be rated as Adequate. This
rule is same for judicial officers of all categories. However, 2 separate ratings scheme have
been prescribed in Chhattisgarh; one for officers of Higher Judicial Service and one for
officers of Lower Judicial Service. An officer of a Higher Judicial Service will get a rating of
51
705
113525/2018/NM
Good if his daily output is between 6 to 7 units. On the other hand, an officer of Lower
Judicial Service will get a rating of Good if his daily output is between 7 to 8 units.
The most elaborate scheme of Multiple Rating Scheme can be found in Tamil Nadu. Specific
quantitative benchmarks have been separately prescribed for 45 categories of judicial
officers. In West Bengal, separate benchmarks have been specified for 14 categories of
judicial officers.
Table 4- Comparative Overview of Rating Schemes
Single Rating System for All Officers Multiple Rating System for All Officers
Assam West Bengal
Manipur Karnataka
Odisha Tamil Nadu
Gujarat Chhattisgarh
Maharashtra Madhya Pradesh
New Delhi
Uttar Pradesh
Best Practice
In terms prescribing Single/Multiple rating schemes, the best practice can be seen in New
Delhi and Maharashtra. Providing different quantitative benchmarks for different categories
of officers without accompanying explanations is not ideal as the reasons behind the
differentiation in benchmarks are not necessarily apparent. Multiple rating schemes also
make the official policies highly cluttered. It makes more logical sense to define a common
52
706
113525/2018/NM
quantitative benchmark for all the officers and then prescribe concessions and relaxations
wherever necessary by way of general principles. This will ensure that the reasons behind the
relaxations or concessions are transparently articulated. Thus in States like New Delhi and
Maharashtra, after a prescription of common quantitative benchmark for all categories of
judicial officers, concessions have been granted to certain categories of judicial officers
having additional administrative responsibilities.
In terms of the range of the rating scale, the best practice can be seen in Manipur which has a
5 point rating scale of Poor, Average, Good, Very Good and Outstanding. A 5 point rating
scale provides a reasonable range to categorise the different performance levels of judicial
officers. On the other hand, 4 point ratings scale fall slightly short of covering an adequate
range of performance levels. For example, after Inadequate, the next rating in Assam is Good
which does not satisfactorily cover performance levels which should not be attributed a rating
of either Good and Inadequate and fall somewhere in between. In such cases there is no
appropriate middle level of performance. The problem with a 6 point (Maharashtra) or 8
point (Gujarat) rating scale is that such an elaborate rating scale becomes cumbersome. A 5
point rating scale provides the facility of a Middle rating of satisfactory performance with
two ratings dedicated for below satisfactory performance and two ratings dedicated to above
satisfactory performance.
Below is the Rating System of the different States;
Assam
Table 5-Rating System in Assam

Quarterly Assessment for Judicial Officers of all Categories
Quantitative Benchmark Rating
Above 300 units Outstanding
250 to 300 units Very Good
200 to 250 units Good
Less than 200 units Inadequate
53
707
113525/2018/NM
The officers are expected to work for 63 working days in a quarter. If the actual number of
scheduled working days falls below 63 days, the requirement of units is reduced by 3 units
per day.
Manipur
Table 6- Rating System in Manipur
Monthly Assessment on a 100 point formula for Judicial Officers of all Categories
90 or more Outstanding
75 units or more Very Good
60 units or more Good
45 units or more Average
Less than 45 units Poor
For assessment, the norms are calculated in proportion to the number of days for which a
judicial officer has actually worked.
Odisha
In Odisha, an annual assessment has been specified. Judicial officers of all categories are
expected to achieve a quantitative output equivalent to 240 working days in a year.
54
708
113525/2018/NM
West Bengal
Table 7- Rating System in West Bengal-1
Quarterly Assessment for District Judges and Fast Track Court Judges, F.T.C Judges
with less than 25 pending civil cases, Judge, City Civil Court and Judge, City Sessions
Court
Below 210 units Poor
210 units and above Inadequate
240 units and above Adequate
300 units and above Good
360 units and above Very good
420 units and above Outstanding
Quarterly Assessment District Judges having more than 40 courts under their judgeship
Between 105 and 119 units Inadequate
Between 120 and 150 units Adequate
55
709
113525/2018/NM
Quarterly Assessment for Judges, Special Court Conducting I.E. Act Cases
Quarterly Assessment for Chief Judge, City Civil Court/Chief Judge P.S.C Court and
Chief Judge, City Sessions Court
56
710
113525/2018/NM
Monthly Assessment for Civil Judge, Senior Division
Below 100 units Inadequate
100 to 110 units Adequate
126 to 140 units Very good
Monthly Assessment for Civil Judge, Junior Division
57
711
113525/2018/NM
Monthly Assessment, Judicial Magistrates, Chief Judicial Magistrate and Addl. Chief
Judicial Magistrate in a place where there is no Chief Judicial Magistrate
87 to 96 units Good
Monthly Assessment for Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
For a monthly assessment, 20 days on an average are taken as available working days.
58
712
113525/2018/NM
Karnataka
Table 15- Rating System in Karnataka
Monthly Assessment
Category of Judicial Officers Quantitative Benchmark
District and Sessions Judges 10 Sessions Cases or equivalent number of

cases
City Civil and Sessions Judges in 10 Original Suits or equivalent number of

Bangalore cases
Fast Track Courts 14 Sessions cases or equivalent number of

cases
Civil Judges (Sr. Dn.) and CJM and 10 Units

Judges of Small Causes Courts in
Bangalore City
Presiding Officers of Labour 10 Units

Courts/Industrial Tribunals
Karnataka State Transport Appellate 200 appeals/revisions

Tribunal
Family Courts 12 original suits or equivalent number of

cases
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Courts in 10 units

Bangalore City
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Courts in 10 units

Bangalore City deciding cases filed under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act
59
713
113525/2018/NM
Civil Judges (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC 12 original suits or equivalent number of
cases
The annual assessment is done of 11.5 months for District judges, presiding officers of Fast
Track Courts, District Judges presiding over Quasi-Judicial Tribunals, Officers in the cadre of
Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) and CJM and Civil Judges (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC.
Tamil Nadu
Table 16- Rating System in Tamil Nadu-1
Monthly Assessment for District Judges other than Chennai City
Principal District Judges/ District Judges 12.00
Addl. District and Sessions Judges 15.00

(Including special courts under SC and ST
Act)
Tribunals under M. V. Act [In the cadre of 20.00

District Judge]
Monthly Assessment for Senior Civil Judges other than Chennai city
Chief Judicial Magistrates 15.00
Principal Judges/ Sub Judges 15.00
60
714
113525/2018/NM
Addl. Sub Judges (Including the judges 17.00

holding the office of the special courts)
Tribunal under the M. V. Act [In the 20.00

Senior Civil Judge Cadre]
Addl. CJM, Madurai and Kumbakonam No Norms
Monthly Assessment for Civil Judges other than Chennai City
District Munsifs 17.00
Judicial Magistrates 17.00
District Munsifs cum Judicial Magistrates 17.00 [Criminal Side 8.50 and Civil Side
8.50]
Monthly Assessment for City Civil Courts, Chennai
Principal Judge 12.00
Additional Judge 15.00
Assistant Judges [Senior Civil Judges] 17.00
IX & X Assistant Judges [Dealing with 17.00

Execution Proceedings]
61
715
113525/2018/NM
Monthly Assessment for Court of Small Causes, Chennai
Chief Judge 12.00
II, III, IV Judges [dealing with ejectment 17.00

suits & MCOPs]
V & VI Judges [dealing with MCOPs] 20.00
VII & VIII Judges [dealing with RCAs] 17.00
IX Judge [dealing with suits & RCAs] 17.00
X Judge to XVI Judge [dealing with 17.00

RCOPs]
Special Sub Judges I & II dealing with 20.00

MCOP cases
Monthly Assessment for Metropolitan Magistrate Courts
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate 15.00
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate [CBI 12.00

cases]
Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrates, 12.00

E.O. I&II
Metropolitan Magistrates 17.00
62
716
113525/2018/NM
Monthly Assessment for Family Courts
Principal Judge/ Judge 12.00
Additional Principal Judges 12.00
Monthly Assessment for Labour Courts/ Industrial Tribunal
Presiding Officer, Principal Labour Court 15.00
Presiding Officer, Additional Labour 15.00

Court
Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal 15.00
Monthly Assessment for Mahila Courts
Sessions Judge, Mahila Court 15.00
Sessions Judge [FTC], Magaleer 15.00

Needhimandram
63
717
113525/2018/NM
Monthly Assessment for Special Courts
Judge, Special Court under EC Act 15.00
Judge, Additional Special Courts under 10.00

NDPS Act
Additional Judges [CBI Cases] 12.00
Special Judges under TNPID Act 10.00
Special Judges under PC Act cases 12.00
Sessions Judges, Sessions Court for Trial No Norms

of Bomb Blast Cases
Sessions Judge, Sessions Court for Trial of No Norms

cases relating to Communal Classes
Additional Judges (TADA) No Norms
Chairman, Sales Tax Appellate Tribunals No Norms
Addl. Judicial Member, Sales Tax No Norms

Appellate Tribunals
Chairman, State Transport Appellate No Norms

Tribunal
Chairman, Taxation Appellate Tribunals No Norms
For assessment, the norms are calculated in proportion to the number of days for which a
judicial officer has actually worked.
64
718
113525/2018/NM
Chhattisgarh
Table 26- Rating System in Chhattisgarh-1
Daily Assessment for Officers of Higher Judicial Service
Below 5 units Poor
Between 5 to 6 units Average
Between 6 to 7 units Good
Above 7 units Very good
Table 27- Rating System in Chhattisgarh-2
Daily Assessment for Officers of Lower Judicial Service
Below 5.5 units Poor
Between 5.5 to 7 units Average
Between 7 to 8 units Good
For an annual assessment, the calculation is made on the basis of 220 working days.
65
719
113525/2018/NM
Madhya Pradesh
Table 28- Rating System in Madhya Pradesh-1
Daily Assessment for Officers Higher Judicial Service
Below 4 units Poor
Between 4 to 5.5 units Average
Between 5.6 to 6.5 units Good
Above 6.5 units Very good
Table 29- Rating System in Madhya Pradesh-2

Daily Assessment for Civil Judges/Judicial Magistrates
4.5 units and below Poor
Between 4.6 to 6 units Average
Between 6.1 to 7 units Good
For an annual assessment, the calculation is made on the basis of 220 working days.
66
720
113525/2018/NM
Maharashtra
Table 30- Rating System in Maharashtra
Assessment (once in four months) for all Judicial Officers
Works for not more than 20 days during Grossly inadequate if disposal less than 50%
the four monthly period of the total number of actual working days.
Less than 75% of the norms Grossly Inadequate
75% or above 75% of the norms but less Inadequate

than 100%
1.00 to 1.25 times of the norms Adequate
1.26 to 1.50 times of the norms Good
1.51 to 2.00 times of the norms Very Good
Above 2.00 times of the norms Excellent
The norms are calculated on the basis of the actual number of working days by a judicial
officer. When the number of units earned by a judicial officer is equivalent to the number of
days he has worked for, the disposal is counted as 100%. Thus if a judicial officer has
actually worked for 220 days in a year and has earned 250 units, he will be getting a rating of
Adequate.
67
721
113525/2018/NM
Gujarat
Table 31- Rating System in Gujarat
Quarterly Assessment for all Judicial Officers
Less than 75% of Norms Poor
Between 75% and 90% of Norms Inadequate
Between 91% and 99% of Norms Just Adequate
Between 100% and 125% of Norms Adequate
Between 126% and 150% of Norms Good
Between 151% and 200% of Norms Very Good
Between 201% and 300% of Norms Excellent
Above 300% of Norms Outstanding
In a month, an officer is expected to achieve output equivalent to 24 working days in a month

and the assessment is done on a quarterly basis. However, when the total number of actual
working days in a quarter is less than 72, the norms are reduced on a proportionate basis for
that quarter.
68
722
113525/2018/NM
New Delhi
Table 32- Rating System in New Delhi

Quarterly Assessment for all Judicial Officers
350 to 400 units Very Good
300 Units to 350 units Good
Less than 300 units Inadequate
If the number of actual working days in a quarter falls below 70, the requirement of units
shall stand reduced by 4 units for each day by which it falls short of 70 days. The expected
work output of judges is set at 80% of the standard norms in the second quarter of the year in
light of the holidays scheduled at that time of the year.
Uttar Pradesh
In Uttar Pradesh, there is no rating system. The number of quantitative weightage earned by a
judicial officer is expected to be equal to the number of actual working days. Thus, if in a
year, there have been 225 working days, the judicial officer is expected to do work equivalent
to 225 working days.
69
723
113525/2018/NM
D. Policy Regarding Additional Conditions for Quantitative Benchmark
In many States, additional conditions have been prescribed to be eligible for a rating apart
from achieving the required amount of quantitative weightage. In some States, these
conditions have been prescribed for certain categories of judicial officers and in other States,
for all categories of judicial officers. Typically, these conditions are of three categories;
1. A mandate that a certain proportion of cases (civil and criminal, main and
miscellaneous) be maintained in the overall disposal of cases.
2. A mandate that the overall disposal should include certain number of disposals of one
or more particular categories of cases.
3. A mandate that the overall disposal should include a certain number of contested
disposals.
A variety of such conditions are prescribed in all States apart from New Delhi, Uttar Pradesh
and Tamil Nadu. In New Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, there is no express provision
of this nature in any of the official policies shared with us.
Best Practice
It would not be appropriate to compare the policies of different States in this respect as these
policies are mostly based on the nuances of pendency statistics in individual States and also
on certain priorities which can be entirely localised in nature. Thus, a State having less
pendency in civil work need not specify a 50:50 ratio in disposal of civil and criminal cases.
It is not appropriate to compare policies which depend primarily on the peculiarities of local
circumstances.
70
724
113525/2018/NM
Assam
A Sessions Judge/Addl. Sessions Judge having 40 or more cases of culpable homicide,
Section 121, 306 r/w 498A, 304B, 364A IPC and cases under TADA, POTA and NDPS Act
or 80 or more cases of other Session cases has to decide a minimum of 6 or 12 such cases
respectively in a quarter. Failing this requirement, the officer will be rated ‘inadequate’
regardless of the units earned in the same quarter.
Manipur
A judicial officer is required to obtain 60% of the units by contested disposals.
Odisha
In Odisha, the ratio of disposal of civil and criminal cases by a judicial officer should be
equal.
West Bengal
A general guideline has been mandated that judicial officers should attempt to dispose of all
types of matters.
For getting ratings of Good, Very Good and Outstanding, additional requirements of monthly
disposal have been prescribed in the following manner;
Table 33-Additional Conditions for Ratings in West Bengal
Category of Judge Rating of Good Very Good Outstanding
District/FTC Judge 9 Civil+12 12 civil+ 15 18 civil+18 criminal

Criminal cases criminal cases cases
FTC judge with less 15 sessions cases 18 sessions cases 24 sessions cases
than 2 pending civil
cases
71
725
113525/2018/NM
Judge, City Civil 5 suits+5 appeals+ 9 suits+9 appeals+ 9 9 suits+9 appeals+ 9

Court 5 uncontested uncontested uncontested
execution cases execution cases execution cases
District Judges 4 civil+5 criminal 6 civil+6 criminal 9 civil+9 criminal

having more than 40 cases cases cases
courts
Judges, Special 7 sessions+ 4 9 sessions+ 6 12 sessions+ 8

Courts Conductin I.E criminal revision criminal revision criminal revision
Act cases cases cases cases
Chief Judge, City 6 civil cases 7 civil cases 9 civil cases

Civil Court/PSC
Court
Chief Judge, City 5 sessions/other 6 sessions/other 8 sessions/other

Sessions Court contested criminal contested contested criminal+4
+2 criminal criminal+3 criminal criminal revision
revision cases revision cases cases
Civil Judge, Senior 3 suits+1 appeal 4 suits+1 appeal 5 suits+1 appeal

Division
Judge, P.S.C Court 4 suits 5 suits 6 suits

(with less then 20
pending appeals)
Civil Judge, Junior 4 suits 5 suits 6 suits

Division
Judicial Magistrate* 15 cases 18 cases 20 cases
Addl. CJM** 10 cases 12 cases 13 cases
72
726
113525/2018/NM
*and **: In order to get a rating of Adequate, a judicial magistrate must dispose of 13 cases a
month and an Addl. CJM must dispose of 8 cases a month.
Karnataka
1. For District and Sessions Judges, there has to be a minimum disposal of 6 sessions
cases a month.
2. For Civil Judges (Sr. Dn.), there has to be a minimum monthly disposal of 4 original
suits 8 regular appeals by considered judgements.
3. In the monthly disposal of Presiding Officers of Small Causes Court, there shall be
minimum disposals of 12 HRC cases.
4. The monthly disposals by Civil Judges (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC must consist of 6 original
suits on merits.
Chhattisgarh
1. Civil Judges (Class I and II) discharging both civil and criminal work are required to
achieve at least 30 units from civil work.
2. Judges of Higher Judicial Service discharging civil and criminal work are required to
achieve minimum 35 units (including 20 units of civil work excluding claim work).
Madhya Pradesh
Judge dealing with both criminal and civil matters are expected to achieve disposals of at
least 30 units of civil work per month.
Maharashtra
1. The ratio of disposal for judicial officers in relation to Main and Miscellaneous
matters should be 60:40.
73
727
113525/2018/NM
2. The ratio of disposal of Civil and Criminal work should be 50:50 where the judicial
officer has both civil and criminal files in equal proportion. Otherwise ratio of
disposal of civil and criminal cases by a judicial officer should be proportional the
pendency of civil and criminal matters in his docket.
3. However, no explanation for maintaining the ratio is required when the ratio of civil
work is more than 50%.
Gujarat
1. Judges and Magistrates handling both civil and criminal work and having adequate
number of civil suits on their file are expected to achieve at least 25% of their total
disposal in the nature of civil suits.
2. Senior Civil Judges working in the civil side and having adequate number of Special
Civil Suits are expected to achieve at least 25% of their total disposal in Special Civil
Suits.
3. Chief Judicial Magistrates are expected to show substantial disposal of regular tribal
IPC cases and other cases of serious nature including cases received from Sessions
Courts under Section 228 Cr.PC, cases of special category and misappropriation cases
transferred from other Judicial Magistrates.
4. Magistrates having sufficient number of IPC cases and cases of special category are
expected to show substantial disposal of such matters.
5. Judges and Magistrates who are under special/general directions for the disposal of a
particular civil or particular type of civil and criminal cases or criminal cases are
expected to show substantial disposal of such matters.
6. Judges in the cadre of District Judges (except Judges, City Civil and Sessions Court
and Judges, Family Court) handling both civil and criminal work and having adequate
number of civil matters are expected to achieve at least 45% of their total disposal in
the nature of civil matters.
74
728
113525/2018/NM
E. Policy Regarding Non-Decisional Judicial Work
While the primary duty of judicial officer might be to render judicial decisions, they
discharge a variety of other judicial functions. Conducting a test identification parade,
recording statements or confessions under Section 164 of Cr.PC, examination of witnesses,
framing of charges are various examples of such other judicial functions. These can be
broadly categorised as Non-Decisional Judicial Work. Though these functions by themselves
need not result in a judicial decision, they do require substantial application of time from the
judicial officers. While the Norms for judicial officers mostly focus on attaching quantitative
weightage to the judicial decision making in different category of cases, it is also necessary to
recognize and credit the non-decisional judicial work of the judicial officers.
The policy in different States in this respect is varied. States usually include such work in the
list of entries for which quantitative weightage is attached. Thus, judicial officers are allowed
to earn quantitative weightage for specified non-decisional judicial work in the same way
they earn quantitative weightage for decisional judicial work. For example, in Assam,
Officers in the cadres of CJM, ACJM, JMFC, SPL JMFC are awarded 1 unit for every 10
statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC.
Best Practice
The best practice in this respect can be seen in the state of Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal.
The norms in West Bengal accommodate more categories of non-decisional judicial work
than other States and the same has also been expressly taken into consideration while
prescribing quantitative benchmarks for officers in the cadre of judicial magistrates. In Uttar
Pradesh, a general rule has been prescribed that the actual number of days for which an
officer has done miscellaneous work will be excluded from the total number of days for
which he has to show quantitative output. However, there is no detailing of the quantitative
weightage attached to different functions. Thus, there are no definite guidelines on how many
days of concession should be actually due to a judicial officer for the miscellaneous work
done by him.
75
729
113525/2018/NM
Assam
1. Officers in the cadres of CJM, ACJM, JMFC, SPL JMFC are awarded 1 unit for every
10 statements recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC.
2. Officers in the cadres of CJM, ACJM, JMFC, SPL JMFC are awarded 2 unit for
confession recorded under Section 164 of Cr.PC
3. Officers in the cadres of CJM, ACJM, JMFC, SPL JMFC are awarded 2 unit for every
T.I. parade conducted.
Manipur
1. Recording of confessional statements is awarded 2 units.
2. Conducting a test identification parade is awarded 2 units.
3. Recording of statements under section 164 of Cr.PC is awarded .10 units.
Odisha
No quantitative credit has been awarded to specific non-decisional judicial work in any of the
official policies shared with us.
West Bengal
1. The non-decisional work of judicial magistrates (recording statements, conducting T.I

parade etc.) has been taken into account while fixing the requirement of disposal of
cases.
2. 2 units are awarded to Judicial Magistrates for conducting T.I. Parade.
3. 2 units are awarded to Judicial Magistrates for recording of confessional statement
under Section 164 of Cr.PC.
4. 1 unit is awarded to Judicial Magistrates for recording of statements of witnesses
under Section 164 Cr.PC and
5. 1 unit is awarded for recording statement of accused under section 313 of Cr.PC.
6. Units have been awarded for examination and cross examination of witnesses
(varying from 1 to 6 depending on the number of witnesses) in different categories of
cases such as disposal u/s 235 of Cr.PC, contested matrimonial suits, contested civil
suit or counter claim etc.
76
730
113525/2018/NM
7. 1 unit is awarded for framing of charges to officers in the cadre of District

Judges/F.T.C Judges and Civil Judge Senior Division cum Assistant Sessions Judge.
Karnataka
There is no express provision regarding weightage for any specific non-decisional judicial
work in any of the official policies shared with us.
Tamil Nadu
1. Magistrates/Metropolitan Magistrates are awarded 0.10 units for examination of

witnesses subject to a maximum of 3.00 units.
2. 0.01 units are awarded for recording statement of witnesses under Section 164 of
Cr.PC.
3. 0.25 units are awarded for recording of dying declaration.
4. 0.50 units are awarded for conducting test identification parade.
5. 0.25 units are awarded for recording of confession.
Chhattisgarh
There is no express allotment of units for non-decisional judicial work in any of the official
policies shared with us.
Madhya Pradesh
Higher Judicial Service
1. 2 units for framing charge
2. 2 units for recording statement of material witness including investigating officer and
of such witnesses which requires considerably longer time for recording of statement
(maximum of 4 units in a case)
Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrates
1. 1 unit for recording of statement under 164 of Cr.PC (maximum 5 units in a month)
77
731
113525/2018/NM
Maharashtra
1. Officers in the cadre of CJM/JMFC/Metropolitan Magistrate are awarded 0.50 units

for recording statements of witnesses under section 164 of Cr.PC.
2. Officers in the cadre of CJM/JMFC/ Metropolitan Magistrate are awarded 0.50 units
for recording statements of approver under 306 of Cr.PC
3. District and Sessions judges are awarded 0.75 units for recording of evidence in
absence of accused under 299 of Cr.PC
Gujarat
1. Across most cadres of judicial officers, framing of charges and framing of issues is
allotted quantifiable credit and is regarded as equivalent to 0.10 working days.
2. Recording of confessions and statements under section 164 of Cr.PC is regarded as
equivalent to 0.20 working days.
New Delhi
1. For Chief/Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrates and Metropolitan Magistrates, 3 units

are awarded for framing of charge in warrant trials.
2. For Chief/Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrates and Metropolitan Magistrates, 8 units
a month are awarded for miscellaneous work which includes recording of statements
under Section 164 of Cr.PC.
Uttar Pradesh
1. In calculating the total number of working days for which a judicial officer is
expected to show quantitative output, the number of days dedicated to miscellaneous
work is excluded.
2. In Schedule A of the list of entries dealing with Criminal Work, there is a mandate
that when part heard cases are not completed in the same financial year, the presiding
officer may make a note in his statement of the precise work done and the time spent
therein. Thus, it is possible that many judicial functions such as framing of charges,
examination of witnesses etc. may be covered under this provision.
78
732
113525/2018/NM
F. Policy Regarding Administrative Responsibilities
In addition to the judicial functions, judicial officers usually are also entrusted with a variety
of administrative responsibilities. The administrative responsibilities can be of a wide range
and can also vary according to the cadre of judicial officers. These responsibilities are an
important and integral aspect of their role as members of the judiciary. These responsibilities
can range from organising legal literacy camps to inspection of courts. They also include
conducting departmental inquiries and being part of various administrative committees.
The Norms in the States address the issue of administrative responsibilities of judicial
officers in different ways and to different degrees. In some States, certain administrative
responsibilities are explicitly included in the list of entries carrying quantitative weightage.
For example, officers in Higher Judicial Service in Madhya Pradesh are awarded 4 units per
court for annual inspection.
In some other States, specified categories of officers are awarded certain number of units in
general in recognition of the overall administrative responsibilities entrusted to such
categories of judicial officers. For example, in Assam, District and Sessions Judges, Chief
Judicial Magistrates and SDJM (posted in Sub-divisional Head Quarters) are awarded 2 units
per court under their administrative jurisdiction.
In some States, a relaxation in the Norms is prescribed for judicial officers having substantial
administrative responsibilities. For example, in New Delhi, an officer in the cadre of District
Judge-I, Sessions Judge, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and Administrative Civil Judge
(central) are expected to fulfil only 50% of the allotted units for a particular rating. Thus, a
Sessions Judge will get a rating of ‘Outstanding’ if he completes work equivalent to more
than 200 units.
In some States, relaxation has been given to certain judicial officers in the very prescription
of the norms. For example, in Tamil Nadu, the prescribed norm of disposal of a Principal
District Judge is less than that of an Additional District Judge. Similarly, in City Civil Courts
in Chennai, the norm of disposal of the Principal Judge is less than that of the Additional
Judges and Assistant Judges.
79
733
113525/2018/NM
In some States, a combination of such methodologies is also adopted. For example, in West
Bengal, specific units are awarded for certain administrative responsibilities. Also, certain
categories of officers are given certain number of units in recognition of the overall
administrative responsibilities entrusted to them.
Best Practice
The best practice in this respect can be found in Maharashtra and to a certain extent, in West
Bengal. In Maharashtra, weightage is attributed to specified categories of officers having
administrative responsibilities in a structured manner. It presents a more logical and clear
approach. The calculation involved is simpler. Awarding weightage to specific administrative
work is cumbersome as the range of administrative responsibilities cannot be adequately pre-
defined. Apart from some predictable work like inspection of courts, there might be many
administrative responsibilities in terms of being part of committees and being in charge of
specific assignments which cannot always be reflected in the list of entries.
Assam
1. District and Sessions Judges, Chief Judicial Magistrates and SDJM (posted in Sub-
divisional Head Quarters) are awarded 2 units per court under their administrative
jurisdiction.
2. Judicial officers working as Secretaries of District Legal Services Authorities in
addition to their normal duties are awarded 10 additional units in a quarter.
3. Judicial officers working as Secretary, Deputy Secretary or Assistant Secretary of
Mediation Centres in addition to their normal duties are awarded additional 5 units in
a quarter.
4. Judge of all cadres are awarded 5 units for conducting Departmental Inquiry.
80
734
113525/2018/NM
Manipur
No express concession or additional weightage has been awarded in relation to the
administrative responsibilities that a judicial officer might be discharging in any of the
Odisha
There is no express relaxation or additional weightage for administrative responsibilities in
any of the official policies shared with us.
West Bengal
1. District judges having 40 courts and above, Chief Judge of City Civil Court, Chief
Judge of City Sessions Court and Chief Judge of P.S.C Court are awarded 80 units per
year.
2. District Judges having less than 40 courts are awarded 40 units per year.
3. Officers in the Cadre of District Judges/F.T.C Judges are awarded units for inspection
of jail, inspection of own court (1 unit) and for inspection of subordinate courts (4
units).
4. Judicial Magistrates are awarded 1 unit for inspection of jails.
5. Officers in the Cadre of District Judges/F.T.C Judges, Civil Judges Senior Division
cum Assistant Sessions Judges, Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrates
are awarded units for annual inspection of own court. (4 for District Judges/F.T.C
Judges and 6 for other cadres)
6. Officers in the cadre of CMM, ACMMs, CJMs and ACJMs are given 20 units per
year for administrative work.
7. 1 unit per programme is awarded to officers of all cadres for attending and organising
Legal Aid Camps and Legal Awareness Camps.
8. 4 units are awarded for conducting departmental inquiry to officers of all cadres.
9. The requirement of units for different ratings is relaxed for District Judges having 40
or more than 40 courts under their judgeship, Chief Judge of City Civil Court and
Chief Judge of City Sessions Court.
10. The requirement of units for different ratings is relaxed for District Judicial
Magistrates, Chief Judicial Magistrate and Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate in a place
81
735
113525/2018/NM
where there is no Chief Judicial Magistrate and also for Addl. Chief Judicial
Magistrates in places where there is a Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Karnataka
There is no express relaxation or additional weightage awarded to judicial officers for their
administrative responsibilities in any of the official policies shared with us.
Tamil Nadu
0.50 units are awarded for holding inquiry in disciplinary proceedings. While no separate
concession is granted for administrative responsibilities of judges, it seems to have been
addressed through the fixation of norms in the first place. One can notice that in different
categories, judges having more administrative responsibilities have been given reduced
norms. For example, the prescribed norm of disposal of a Principal District Judge is less than
that of an Additional District Judge. Similarly, in City Civil Courts in Chennai, the norm of
disposal of the Principal Judge is less than that of the Additional Judges and Assistant Judges.
However, the Norms do not specify if the same is done in recognition of the administrative
responsibilities or for some other reason.
Chhattisgarh
Following concession is granted to officers of Higher Judicial Service;
1. 22 units per month to District Judges where there are up to 20 courts in the District
2. 30 units per month to District Judges where there are more than 20 courts in the
District
3. 5 units per court for annual inspection
4. 5 units per literacy camp subject to a maximum of 10 units in a month
5. 5 units per month to senior officers in charge of Nazarat, Copying, Record Room,
Malkhana/Library and Stationary at the District Head Quarter who have done
substantial work and the same is certified by District Judge.
6. 4 units per month for officers in charge of Nazarat, Copying and Malkhana in
outlaying stations.
82
736
113525/2018/NM
7. 7 units per month for officers in charge of other sections in outlaying stations where
there is only one judge.
8. 15 units to Principal Judge/Judge, Family Court for administrative work.
9. 10 units to Additional Principal Judge, Family Court for administrative work.
Following concession is granted to officers of Lower Judicial Service;

1. Railway Magistrates and Motor Vehicles Magistrates are exempted from giving
standard disposal units during tour days.
2. 5 units for officer in charge of Malkhana per month if substantial work is done and the
same is certified by the District Judge.
3. 4 units per month to junior officers in charge of Nazarat Copying, Record Room,
Malkhana who have done substantial work and the same is certified by District Judge.
5. 5 units per literacy camp subject to a maximum of 10 units in a month
Madhya Pradesh
Following concession is granted to officers of Higher Judicial Service;

1. 15 units to District Judges with not more than 10 courts functioning in the district
2. 20 units to District Judges with not less than 10 and not more than courts functioning
in the district.
3. 25 units to District Judges with more than 20 courts functioning in the district
4. 4 units per court for Annual Inspection
5. 5 units for each literacy camp. Maximum of 3 camps per month for Chairman of
District Legal Services Authority/Tehsil Legal Services Authority and a maximum of
2 camps per month for other judicial officers.
6. 5 units per month to senior officers in charge of Nazarat, Copying, Record Room,
Malkhana/Library and Stationary at the District Head Quarter who have done
substantial work and the same is certified by District Judge.
outlaying stations.
83
737
113525/2018/NM
9. 5 units for officers in charge of Computerization up to 25 courts.
10. 7.5 units for officers in charge of Computerization from 26 to 50 courts.
11. 10 units for officers in charge of Computerization above 50 courts.
Following concession is granted to Civil Judges/Judicial Magistrates;

6. 5 units for each literacy camp. Maximum of 3 camps per month for Chairman of
District Legal Services Authority/Tehsil Legal Services Authority and a maximum of
2 camps per month for other judicial officers.
7. Railway Magistrates and Motor Vehicles Magistrates are exempted from giving
standard disposal units during tour days.
8. 5 units for officer in charge of Malkhana per month if substantial work is done and the
same is certified by the District Judge.
9. 4 units per month to officers in charge of Nazarat, Copying, Record Room,
Malkhana/Library and Stationary who have done substantial work and the same is
certified by District Judge.
outlaying stations.
12. 5 units for officers in charge of Computerization up to 25 courts.
13. 7.5 units for officers in charge of Computerization from 26 to 50 courts.
14. 10 units for officers in charge of Computerization above 50 courts.
Maharashtra
1. A clear scheme has been incorporated to take into consideration the administrative
work of judicial officers. In all, 27 categories of judicial officers have been specified
additional weightage of working days for calculating their disposal percentage. For
example, while Principal District Judges in Thane, Pune and Nagpur districts are
entitled to a weightage of 12 days, President of Industrial Court, Bombay is entitled to
6 days of weightage.
84
738
113525/2018/NM
1. Judges participating in legal literacy camps are awarded 1.00 units subject to a
maximum of 3 camps in a quarter.
2. A credit of one day in a month is given Chairman and Secretary of District Legal
Services Authority and Chairman of the Taluka Legal Services Authority.
3. For every departmental inquiry, the presenting officer gets 1.00 units and the enquiry
officer gets 1.50 units.
Gujarat
Though there is no specific rule regarding relaxation of norms due to administrative
responsibilities of a judicial officer, an additional weightage of 25% is given to Principal
Senior Civil Judges and Judges of Commercial Courts. The rule does not explain if the same
is done due to the existing administrative responsibilities or for some other reason.
New Delhi
The District Judge- I and Sessions Judge, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Officer assigned the
work of DDO and Administrative Civil Judge(Central) are expected to achieve only 50% of
the allotted units for a particular rating.
The Judicial Officers working as part time Secretaries of District Legal Services Committees
for the second half of each working day are expected to achieve only 50% of the allotted
units for a particular rating.
Officer’s in-charge looking for Administration, Vigilance, Litigation and Controlling Officer
(Accounts) in the office of District Judge-I and Sessions Judge on account of additional
Administrative Work are expected to achieve only 80% of the allotted units for a particular
rating.
Other District and Sessions Judges and Principal Judge, Family Courts on account of
additional Administrative work are expected to achieve only 75% of the allotted units for a
particular rating.
DDOs in the office of District Judge-II to District Judge IX, Officers in-charge looking after
Administration, Vigilance and Litigation in the offices of District Judge- II to District Judge-
IX, and ACMMs on account of additional Administrative Work are expected to achieve only
90% of the allotted units for a particular rating.
85
739
113525/2018/NM
In relation to the officers of Delhi Higher Judicial Service, units are also awarded for
inspection of court. A judge is granted 3 units per inspection subject to a maximum of 15
units in a quarter. Units are also awarded for conducting fact finding inquiry (2) and regular
departmental inquiry (6) to judges of both Higher Judicial Service and Delhi Judicial Service.
Uttar Pradesh
The following provisions have been made in Uttar Pradesh in this respect;
1. The days spent by judicial officers in inspecting their own court or inspecting
subordinate courts is expected to be noted in the remarks column of the statement of
disposals submitted by the officers.
2. It is also categorically provided that the number of days spent on inspection of
subordinate courts will be excluded from the total number of working days for which
an officer is expected to give quantitative output.
3. In the cadre of district judges, weightage is given in the following manner for
administrative work and for work connected to admissions, bail, legal aid and Lok
Adalats;
In districts having not more than 20 courts 15%
In districts having not more than 30 courts 20%
In districts having more than 30 courts 25%
4. In the cadre of senior most additional district and sessions judges, weightage is given
in the following manner for administrative work;
In judgeships having not more than 20 1 day per month

courts
In judgeships having not more than 30 1.5 days per month

courts
In judgeships having more than 30 courts 2 days per month
86
740
113525/2018/NM
5. Weightage is given to Member/Secretary of District Legal Services Authority who

also discharges judicial functions to the tune of 25% in their quota.
G. Policy Regarding Disposal of Old Cases
One of the biggest problems in the Indian judicial system has been the pendency of cases
over long periods of times. Clearing the huge backlog of cases has been one of the most
important objectives. States have sought to address this issue by incorporating some special
provisions in the Norms regarding disposal of old cases. The issue has been addressed
primarily by three alternative ways or by a combination of the three ways.
In some States, additional weightage is given to specific categories of old cases. Thus, while
a normal disposal of a case would carry a certain quantitative weightage, an old case of the
same type would carry additional quantitative weightage. Thus, the list of entries specifies
both the normal quantitative weightage and the additional quantitative weightage in relation
to the specified categories. Example of such a policy can be seen in New Delhi and Assam. In
such a policy, additional weightage is awarded only for some specific cases and not for
others. For example, in Assam, while additional weightage is awarded for disposing cases of
culpable homicide which are more than 8 years old, no such weightage is given for criminal
appeals. In New Delhi, while additional weightage is given for disposal of civil suits which
are more than 10 years old, no such provision exists for cases of culpable homicide.
In some States, a blanket additional weightage is given for cases belonging to a broad
category. Example of this policy can be seen in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. In Tamil Nadu,
2.5 extra units are awarded for disposal of contested regular civil appeals pending for more
than 10 years. In Karnataka, Additional weightage of one unit is given for disposal by a
considered judgement of each suit in every case pending for more than 5 years.
Another approach in this respect is to specify that a proportion of the total disposals by a
judicial officer must consist of old cases. In Karnataka, there is a mandate that in relation to
the District and Sessions Judges, Civil Judges (Sr. Dn.), Civil Judges (Jr. Dn.), JMFC, CJM
87
741
113525/2018/NM
and Judges of Small Causes Courts in Bangalore City that 25% of overall disposal shall be of
oldest cases pending on the file.
Best Practice
The best practice in this respect can be seen in Gujarat. Three complimentary strategies have
been adopted in Gujarat for encouraging greater disposal of old cases;
1. Firstly, a mandate has been made in relation to different cadres of judicial officers that
a specific percentage of their total disposal must consist of old cases.
2. Secondly, additional weightage has been prescribed for old cases of 6 categories
ranging from cases which are 1 year old to cases which are more than 10 years old.
3. Thirdly, it has been specifically mentioned that failure to dispose of the required
proportion of old cases would result in the downgrading of the rating which the
officer would otherwise have been entitled to.
The policy in Uttar Pradesh also adopts this methodology of combining rules of minimum
disposal and incentive weightage for promoting disposal of old cases.
Assam
In Assam, extra units are awarded for disposal of old cases in specified category of cases. For
example while, disposal of a case of Culpable Homicide is awarded 6 units, 5 additional units
are awarded if the case is more than 5 years old. Such provisions for awarding additional
units for disposal of old cases has been made in 18 categories of cases.
Manipur
No special provisions have been made pertaining to old cases either in terms of added
weightage or in terms of a prescribed percentage of the overall disposal of cases in any of the
88
742
113525/2018/NM
Odisha
An additional weightage of 25% is awarded to judicial officers for disposal of cases which
are more than 7 years old. Thus while the disposal of an original suit is counted as equivalent
to the work of 3 working days, the disposal of an original suit more than 7 years old would be
counted as equivalent to the work of 3.75 working days.
West Bengal
1. Officers in the Cadres of District Judges/F.T.C Judges are given additional 5 units for
contested cases more than 5 years old and additional 2 units for uncontested or ex
parte cases more than 5 years old.
2. It has been mandated that disposal of cases which are more than 7 years old by a
judicial officer is to be given due regarded by the Zonal Judges while making
assessment of the work of the judicial officer.
Karnataka
1. In relation to the District and Sessions Judges, there is a mandate that 25% of overall
disposal shall be of oldest cases pending on the file. A similar mandate is also there
for Civil Judges (Sr. Dn.), Civil Judges (Jr. Dn.), JMFC, CJM and Judges of Small
Causes Courts in Bangalore City.
2. Additional weightage of one unit is given for disposal by a considered judgement of
each suit in every case pending for more than 5 years.
3. Additional weightage of one unit is given in all criminal cases (wherein 20 witnesses
are examined) and civil cases (wherein 10 witnesses are examined) pending for more
than five years.
Tamil Nadu
Additional units are granted for disposing old cases pending for or more than 7 years or 15
years.
89
743
113525/2018/NM
Table 34-Additional Weightage for Disposal of Old Cases in Tamil Nadu
Money suits pending for 7 or more years 1.5 times of the usual units
Suits pending for 7 or more years 2 times of the usual units
Criminal cases pending for 7 or more 1.5 times of the usual units
years
Offences under the Prevention of 2 times of the usual units

Corruption Act of offences relating to
Commercial Crimes pending for 7 or more
years
Any case pending for 15 or more years 3 times the usual units
Chhattisgarh
Additional weightage is given for disposal of old cases as per the following scheme;
Table 35-Additional Weightage for Disposal of Old Cases in Chhattisgarh
Cases between 2 to 5 years old 25% additional units
Cases between 5 to 10 years old 50% additional units
Cases more than 10 years old 100% additional units
Madhya Pradesh
90
744
113525/2018/NM
Table 36-Additional Weightage for Disposal of Old Cases in Madhya Pradesh
Cases pending for 5 or more years 25% additional units
Contested Regular civil appeals pending 2.5 extra units

for more than 10 years
For recording statement of plaintiff 2.5 extra units

witness and defendant witness in
contested civil cases pending for more
than 10 years
Disposal of contested civil cases pending Extra 5 units

for more than 10 years
Maharashtra
Table
37-Additional Weightage for Disposal of Old Cases in Maharashtra
Nature of Case (Civil and Criminal) Weightage
More than 5 years old Additional 0.20 times weightage
91
745
113525/2018/NM
Gujarat
1. Judges having adequate number of 5, 3 or 1 year old suits are expected to show a
disposal of such suits corresponding to 25% of their disposal of working days in a
quarter.
2. Magistrates including Chief Judicial Magistrates/Metropolitan Magistrates having
sufficient number of 1 year old or 6 months old criminal cases are expected to show
disposal of such cases corresponding to 50% of their disposal of working days in a
quarter.
3. In case of adequate pendency, judges are also expected to show 50% of disposal from
3 year old cases.
4. The total disposal of matters by Presiding officers must contain at least 20% of
contested matters which are more than 2 years old in civil cases and more than 1 year
old in criminal cases.
Extra weightage is given for disposal of old cases as per the following scheme if the formal
requirements regarding the proportion of disposals of old matters are adhered to;
Table 38-Additional Weightage for Disposal of Old Cases in Gujarat
Category of Case (Civil Cases) Additional Weightage
More than 10 years old 100%
More than 7 years and less than 10 years 75%

old

old

old
92
746
113525/2018/NM
old
More than 1 year and less than 2 years old 5%
The weightage as outlined above is also given to Members, Industrial Court and Judges,
Labour Court. Also, a judicial magistrate is given 15% of additional weightage when he
keeps the criminal file clear of 6 months old criminal cases.
Along with certain other directions concerning the prioritisation of the disposal of some
cases, when a judge fails to adhere to the prescriptions concerning disposal of old cases, the
rating that such a judge might have achieved is downgraded. Thus, a judge who otherwise
would have received an ‘Excellent’ rating would receive a rating of ‘Very Good’ if he has not
complied with the prescriptions concerning disposal of old cases.
New Delhi
In Delhi, extra units are awarded for disposal of old cases in is specified category of cases.
For example, while generally 4 units are awarded for deciding cases under Section 125 of
Cr.PC, 6 units are awarded if the case is more than 5 years old. While 7 units are awarded for
deciding a contested civil suit, 10 units are awarded for deciding a contested civil suit which
is more than 10 years old. Such provisions for awarding additional units for disposal of old
cases has been made in 23 categories of cases.
Uttar Pradesh
The following provisions have been made in Uttar Pradesh in this respect;
1. Presiding officers are encouraged to prepare a list of 100 oldest cases in each quarter
and dispose of the same on a priority basis.
2. Additional weightage is given to both civil and criminal cases as per the following
scheme;
93
747
113525/2018/NM
Table 39-Additional Weightage for Disposal of Old Cases in Uttar Pradesh
Critically old cases Pre 2005 50% additional weightage
Very old cases Pre 2010 40% additional weightage
Old Cases Pre 2013 30% additional weightage
3. All officers are expected to dispose of at least one case of each category mentioned
above every month.
4. If an officer decides more than the minimum number of cases in each category, he is
also entitled to an additional 10% per case.
5. The rating given to an officer is reviewable if he has not disposed of the minimum
number of old cases from the above categories.
6. For disposal of appeals/revisions pending in the District Court filed during the
pendency of original proceedings against the interim/miscellaneous orders by which
the proceedings of the trial court get stayed, additional weightage at twice the
recommended rate is awarded to the concerned judge.
H. Policy Regarding Incentive Weightage

In many States, schemes of incentive weightage have been adopted to promote greater
disposal of a particular variety of cases. In States like New Delhi and Assam, incentive
weightage is awarded when the judicial officers dispose a particular category of cases beyond
a specified threshold. For example, 5 units for awarded generally for the first 10 disposals in
a particular category. After the tenth disposal, 8 units are awarded for each additional
disposal. In Chhattisgarh, additional weightage is granted for disposing civil cases involving
senior citizens. Here, instances of additional weightage for disposal of old cases have not
been included as the same has been detailed separately. From the official Norms, there does
not seem to be any provision of incentive weightage in Odisha, West Bengal, Karnataka,
Tamil Nadu, Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh.
94
748
113525/2018/NM
Best Practice
It would not be appropriate to compare policies of the States in this respect as such policies
are mostly reflections of the localised challenges and priorities. Thus, incentive weightage
may be granted in relation to specific categories of cases to clear disproportionate backlog
which might be there in relation to such cases and not others. However, the practice of
awarding incentive weightage for civil cases can be addressed in formulation of the norms
itself and need not be addressed through a scheme of incentive weightage. Promoting
disposal of civil cases in case of pendency can be ensured by prescribing rules on
proportionality of disposal instead of awarding incentive weightage.
Assam
Additional units are granted in some categories of cases when the number of disposal crosses
a specified threshold. For example, 8 units are awarded for the final disposal of a Trap case
up to 3 cases in a quarter. After the 3rd case, the judicial officer would be entitled to 12 units
for every final disposal. Such provision has been made in 9 categories of cases with different
threshold for different categories.
Manipur
A benchmark has been fixed on the average pendency which is 400 cases for criminal courts,
100 cases for civil courts and 60 Sessions cases for Sessions Courts.
1. Where pendency is less than 20% of the total benchmark, the units obtained are
increased by 10%.
increased by 20%.
increased by 40%.
95
749
113525/2018/NM
Chhattisgarh
1. Officers who are handling exclusively civil work are given extra 20% units on the
total units earned by them for civil work.
2. Officers who are handling both civil and criminal work are given extra 10% units on
the total units earned by them for civil work.
3. 10% extra units are given for disposal of civil cases relating to Senior Citizens.
Madhya Pradesh
1. Officers who are handling exclusively civil work are given extra 20% units on the
total units earned by them for civil work.
2. Officers who are handling both civil and criminal work are given extra 10% units on
the total units earned by them for civil work.
Maharashtra
1. Additional credit at the rate of .20 times is awarded for disposal up to 10 matters by a
common judgement.
2. Additional credit at the rate of 1.20 times is awarded for disposal of 11 or more
matters by a common judgement.
3. Additional credit at the rate of .10 times is given for rendering judgements in Marathi.
New Delhi
Additional units are granted in some categories of cases when the number of disposal crosses
a specified threshold. Thus, while 8 units are awarded for deciding a case of culpable
homicide for the first 7 such cases, a judge is awarded 12 units for every additional case
decided beyond 7. This scheme for awarding extra units for deciding cases beyond a
particular limit is incorporated for various categories of cases. While 2 units are awarded for
every criminal appeal decided on merits for the first 15 cases, 3 units are awarded for every
criminal appeal decided beyond 15. Out of the 102 sub-categories of cases for which units are
awarded, such an incentive for extra work is provided in relation to 29 sub-categories of
cases.
96
750
113525/2018/NM
I. Policy Regarding Concession for Leave Availed and Regarding Newly Recruited
Officers
It is a general rule that whenever any officer fails to fulfil the quantitative benchmark
prescribed in the Norms, the reasons for such failure may be furnished by him and the same is
expected to be taken into consideration if found reasonable. In such situations, it is feasible
that judicial officers may cite leave taken by them or the fact that they have newly joined the
profession as reasons for not being able to fulfil the quantitative benchmark prescribed under
the Norms. However, in such situations, accepting the validity of these reasons depends on
the discretion of the higher authorities and such occasions also have the possibility of being
fertile grounds of discrimination.
Thus, it is desirable that the policy in this respect should be clear in the Norms prescribed in a
State. The requests for being granted concession on the grounds of leave availed or for being
new in the job should be decided on the basis of established rules and not under discretionary
authority.
J. Policy Regarding Concession for Leave Availed
The policy regarding concession from quantitative benchmarks for leave availed is marked by
variety of approaches.
In States like Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, concession can be granted for
leave availed only in certain specified kinds of leave. In States like Maharashtra, Manipur and
West Bengal the quantitative benchmark is assessed only on the basis of the number of days
an officer has actually worked. Thus the officers automatically get concession for any leave
they might have availed. In States like Gujarat, Odisha and Assam, there does not seem to be
any express rule regarding officers being granted concession for any leave availed by them.
97
751
113525/2018/NM
Best Practice
The best practice in this respect can be seen in Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh. While
identifying the best practice in this respect, there is the need to balance two requirements;
encouraging greater disposal of cases and promoting reasonable work environment for
judicial officers. Assessing the work of judicial officers only for the days on which they have
actually worked would mean that their quantitative benchmark will be adjusted in relation to
every single leave they might take, for whatever reason. Keeping in mind the pendency in the
courts, such a degree of relaxation does not seem appropriate. On the other hand, not
providing any kind of concession when leave is taken for genuine reasons can be
demotivating and harsh. The policies in Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh provide a
balanced solution to this dilemma by awarding concession for certain kinds of leaves and not
others. The kinds of leaves which have been recognised for this purpose seem to have been
prepared keeping in mind peculiarities of Indian society which may not be as relevant
elsewhere. Thus, apart from certain other categories, leave taken for the marriage of a son or
daughter and leave taken in case of the death of close family members is recognised.
Assam
There is no express concession granted for any leave availed by a judicial officer in any of
the official policies shared with us.
Manipur
A generalised guideline has been prescribed that the number of days an officer has been on
leave may be taken into consideration while his quarterly output is being assessed. However,
this is subject to the condition that the work done by him is otherwise found to be substantial.
Odisha
There is no express concession granted for any leave availed by a judicial officer in any of
the official policies shared with us.
98
752
113525/2018/NM
West Bengal
While assessing the work of a judicial officer, the actual days employed by an officer is taken
into consideration. Thus, any leave availed by an officer is taken into account for a
proportionate reduction in the disposal requirements.
Karnataka
Concession is granted in terms of achieving the prescribed norms by a judicial officer only
for medical leave of more than twenty days or maternity leave.
Tamil Nadu
Concession is granted when the officer has actually worked for less number of days than the
designated number of working days. The required norm for such an officer is reduced on a
proportionate basis.
Chhattisgarh
Leave taken by an officer on the following grounds is taken into account while determining
the number of working days applicable to a judicial officer;
1. Leave taken on the ground of serious ailment of himself, spouse or children.
2. Leave taken on the ground of sudden demise of family members (mother, father,
brother, sister, husband, wife, son and daughter)
3. Number of days spent in the training/workshop which is held in the working days.
4. Leave taken for marriage of self, brother, sister, son and daughter.
5.
Madhya Pradesh
Leave taken by an officer on the following grounds is taken into account while determining
the number of working days applicable to a judicial officer;
1. Leave taken on the ground of serious ailment of himself, spouse or children.
2. Leave taken on the ground of sudden demise of family members (mother, father,
brother, sister, husband, wife, son and daughter)
99
753
113525/2018/NM
3. Period spent in the training/workshop which is held in the working days.

4. Leave taken for marriage of self, brother, sister, son and daughter.
Maharashtra
Calculation of norms is made only in relation to the actual working days of a judicial officer.
Thus, any leave availed by an officer is taken into account for a proportionate reduction in the
disposal requirements.
Gujarat
There is no express provision for any kind of concession to be granted for leave availed by a
judicial officer in any of the official policies shared with us.
New Delhi
4 units are added to the total number of units earned by a judicial officer for each day that he
is on leave. This concession is at the same ratio which is adopted when the required units in a
quarter are reduced by 4 units a day when the number of working days in the quarter is less
than 70.
Uttar Pradesh
In calculating the working days of a judicial officer, all days on which the officer is casual
and earned leave is excluded.
100
754
113525/2018/NM
K. Policy Regarding Concession for Newly Recruited Officers
In majority of the States, there is no express or official relaxation of norms for newly
recruited judicial officers. They are expected to achieve the same quantitative benchmark as
the rest of the officers. Only four States (Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and
Gujarat) have made clear rules under which concession is granted to newly recruited officers
for a certain period of time.
Best Practice
The best practice in this respect can be seen in Gujarat, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh. In
these States, concession is granted to newly recruited officers in the cadre of both entry level
and District Judges.
Chhattisgarh
For the first two years of joining office, the criteria for newly appointed judicial officers in
Higher Judicial Service is one unit less for each category. For the first two years of joining
office, the criteria for newly appointed judicial officers in Lower Judicial Service is 1.5 units
less for each category.
Madhya Pradesh
For the first two years of service, the criteria for newly recruited officers in the Higher
Judicial Service is 1 unit less in each category of the rating scale. For the first two years of
service, the criteria for newly recruited officers in the cadre of Civil Judges/Judicial
Magistrates is 1.5 unit less in each category of the rating scale.
101
755
113525/2018/NM
Maharashtra
Concession is granted to newly recruited Civil Judges (Junior Division) and Judicial
Magistrates First Class. Till the completion of their training and for the first 4 months
thereafter, no calculation is made of their disposals. For the next 8 months, their norms are
calculated by considering ½ days out of the total effective working days. For the 4 months
thereafter, their norms are calculated with 2/3 days out of the total effective working days.
Gujarat
The norms for a District Judge in the first year of his appointment are calculated as 2/3rd of
the prescribed norms. In case of Civil Judges and Judicial Magistrates the norms during the
1st year of probation and the 2nd year of service is calculated as 50% and 2/3rd of the
prescribed norms. For the first two months of being appointed, the work of Civil Judges and
Judicial Magistrates is not calculated.
L. A Hypothetical Comparison of Quantitative Workload
In light of the wide range of differences, it becomes very difficult to compare the quantitative
workload of judicial officers in different States. Firstly, there is a great deal of difference in
the categories of judges for whom Norms have been specified. While, in Tamil Nadu, Norms
have been specified separately for 45 categories of judicial officers, it has been specified
separately for 5 categories of officers in Assam.
Secondly, there are differences in the quantitative benchmark which has been prescribed.
Thirdly, there are differences in the rating scale adopted by different States. While some
States have a 4 point rating scale, some have a 6 point rating scale and some States do not
have any rating scale apart from the requirement of achieving a minimum quantitative
benchmark.
Fourthly, the numbers of working days for which the quantitative benchmarks are assessed
also vary. The expected number of working days in a year is 220 in Chhattisgarh and Madhya
Pradesh, 240 in Odisha, 252 in Assam and 288 in Gujarat. The quantitative benchmarks are
102
756
113525/2018/NM
relaxed in Assam and Gujarat if the number of scheduled working days in a year falls below
252 or 288. In Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh, there is no relaxation if the scheduled
working days are below 220 but there is relaxation for judicial officers who avail certain
categories of leave. In Odisha, no relaxation of any kind exists and a judicial officer is
expected to show output equivalent to 240 working days regardless of the scheduled number
of workings days and any leave availed. In West Bengal, Manipur and Maharashtra, there is
no fixed number of working days on the basis of which the quantitative benchmark of a
judicial officer is assessed. In these three States, the assessment is done on the basis of the
actual number of days for which a judicial officer has worked.
Fifthly, the rules regarding relaxation of Norms vary significantly. While the quantitative
benchmark of a judicial officer in Manipur, Maharashtra and West Bengal will be
proportionately reduced for the days that he has availed leave, a judicial officer in Odisha will
not be entitled to the same.
Sixthly, the manners in which the administrative responsibilities of judicial officers will be
adjusted as quantitative weightage are significantly different. In Maharashtra a District Judge
would get weightage of a specified number of days. No additional weightage is provided for
inspection of court etc. In Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh, apart from the weightage of
units that a District Judge would get, he would also be entitled to specific number of units for
each inspection.
Seventhly, the list of entries for which quantitative weightage has been prescribed varies
substantially. In Gujarat, after removing redundant entries, quantitative weightage has been
prescribed for 289 entries. The corresponding number for Odisha is 74. This means that some
cases have been expressly given quantitative weightage in some States and not in others.
While quantitative weightage has been prescribed for insolvency petitions in Gujarat and
Maharashtra, no such mention has been made in the list of entries in Chhattisgarh and Assam.
Proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.PC are mentioned in the list of entries in both New
Delhi and Chhattisgarh. However, in Chhattisgarh separate units are awarded for contested
and uncontested maintenance proceedings and no such distinction has been maintained in
New Delhi.
103
757
113525/2018/NM
Eighthly, the nature of additional conditions in different States is starkly different. In

Maharashtra, the ratio of disposal of civil and criminal cases by a judicial officer should be
proportionate to the pendency of civil and criminal matters in his docket. On the other hand,
in Madhya Pradesh, a judge dealing with both criminal and civil matters is expected to
achieve disposals of at least 30 units of civil work per month. In West Bengal there is a
mandate of required number of contested disposals in order to be eligible for a rating. For
example, a Civil Judge (Senior Division) will not be awarded a rating of Outstanding even if
he has earned above 140 units in a month unless he has disposed of a minimum of 5 suits and
1 appeal in a month. Similarly, a Judicial Magistrate would not be rated Very Good even if he
has earned more than 97 units in a month unless he has disposed of 18 contested cases. No
such additional conditions have been prescribed in Tamil Nadu and Odisha.
Tenthly, the scheme of incentive weightage also differs greatly. In Maharashtra, additional
credit is granted for disposal of multiple matters by a common judgement. On the other hand,
in West Bengal, it has been expressly provided that analogous suits disposed of by a common
judgement will be treated as one disposal of suit. In Chhattisgarh, additional units are
awarded for disposing civil cases involving senior citizens. In New Delhi and Assam,
additional units are awarded in particular categories of cases when the number of disposals in
the specified category crosses prescribed threshold.
On point number eleven is the disparity of weightage attached to disposal of old cases. In
Gujarat, extra weightage is awarded to old cases ranging from 1 year old to 10 years old. In
Tamil Nadu, extra weightage is awarded for old cases ranging from 7 years old to 15 years
old.
The range of differences outlined above means that it becomes quite problematic to
meaningfully compare the disparity, if any, in the quantitative workload of judicial officers in
different States. Thus, while conducting a comparative assessment, certain prescriptions in
the Norms have been deliberately ignored while calculating the case load and focus has been
on building a comparative foundation of certain points of similarities among different States.
Particularly difficult to reconcile is the differences in the additional conditions regarding
quantitative benchmark due to the substantial disparity in the list of entries with quantitative
weightage and the list of various categories of judges in the different States. It is extremely
problematic to find the same entry for the same category of judge in multiple States with
104
758
113525/2018/NM
similar rating scale, similar policies regarding administrative responsibilities, concession for
leave, incentive weightage, proportionality of disposal and disposal of old cases.
Thus, we are constrained to limit the comparative assessment by ignoring or neutralising

certain variables and limiting the number of States in the comparative framework.
All analysis is based on the following assumptions;

1. The projection of the quantitative benchmark is for annual assessment.
2. That there has been no reduction in the prescribed number of working days for the
year.
3. That the concerned judicial officer has not taken the benefit of any proportionate
reduction of benchmark for the leave availed by him.
4. That there has been no added weightage earned by the judicial officer by disposing
old cases. However, wherever disposal of old cases is a part of the mandate
(Karnataka), it is presumed that the judicial officer has complied with such mandate.
5. There has been no incentive weightage earned by the judicial officers other than those
which accrue due to disposing more than a specified number of cases of a particular
category.
6. That no account has been taken of quantitative weightage attached to specific
administrative responsibilities as the same can be earned on actual work. However,
account has been taken of quantitative weightage attached to administrative positions.
The combination of entries through which quantitative benchmark has been calculated is
based on the policies on proportionate disposal and the commonality of entries among the
States under comparison.
Odisha, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu

Odisha, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu do not have any rating scale and in each State, a certain
quantitative benchmark has been prescribed.
The following figure illustrates the manner in which a judicial officer in the cadre of District
and Sessions Judge in Odisha, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka (not being Principal District Judge)
can achieve the prescribed yearly benchmark. In this case, the judge in Karnataka needs to
105
759
113525/2018/NM
ensure that at least 25% of the cases disposed of by him were the oldest cases in his file. This
figure assumes that the judge is handling both civil and criminal matters and thus existing
policies on proportionate disposal have been applied.
Annual Assessment of District and Sessions Judges (other than Principal District
Judges)
100 90
90
80
69
70 60
60
50 46
40 Sessions Cases
40 30 Original Suit
30
20
10
0
Tamil Nadu Karnataka Odisha
Figure 13 Comparative Workload-1 in Odisha, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka
If we analyse the benchmark for Principal District Judges, the workload for judges in Tamil
Nadu will be reduced as judges having substantial administrative responsibilities have been
systematically given a more relaxed benchmark.
Annual Assessment of Principal District and Sessions Judges

80 72
69
70
60
48 46
50
40
40 Sessions Cases
30
30 Original Suit
20
10
0
Tamil Nadu Karnataka Odisha
Figure 14 Comparative Workload-2 in Odisha, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka
106
760
113525/2018/NM
Assam, New Delhi, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh

Assam, New Delhi, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh have adopted a 4 point rating scale for
grading the quantitative benchmarks of judicial officers. However, while Chhattisgarh and
Madhya Pradesh have adopted ratings of Poor, Average, Good and Very Good; New Delhi
and Assam have adopted the ratings of Inadequate, Good, Very Good and Outstanding.
Table 40-Comparative Ratings Scale of Assam, New Delhi, Chhattisgarh and Madhya
Pradesh
State Rating 1 Rating 2 Rating 3 Rating 4
Assam Inadequate Good Very Good Outstanding
New Delhi Inadequate Good Very Good Outstanding
Chhattisgarh Poor Average Good Very Good
Madhya Poor Average Good Very Good

Pradesh
Thus a Good rating in New Delhi and Assam is equivalent to an Average rating in
Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh.
In this comparative assessment, attempt has been made to ascertain the amount of workload a
judicial officer needs to achieve in order to be awarded the highest rating in these States and
in order to avoid the lowest rating in these States. Thus, we are looking at the comparative
workload of judicial officers (in the cadres of District Judges/Higher Judicial Service) to be
awarded ‘Good (Assam, New Delhi) and Average (Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh)’ and
‘Outstanding (Assam, New Delhi) and Very Good (Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh).
The following is the standard number of units which are necessary in the 4 states for a rating
of Average/Good and for a rating of Very Good/Outstanding;
107
761
113525/2018/NM
1800
1650
1600 1524
1400
1204
1200 1140 1210 1240
1000 990
800
800 Units for Average/Good
600
Units for Very
400 Good/Outstanding
200
0
Assam
New Delhi
Chhattisgarh
Madhya
Pradesh
Figure 15 Standard Rating Scale in New Delhi, Assam, Chhattisgarh and Madhya
Pradesh
These figures change when we take into account the additional weightage/relaxation that is
available. As the extra weightage in Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Assam is dependent
on the number of courts under the judgeship of a District Judge, a hypothetical figure of 25
districts under the judgeship of all the judges has been assumed and applicable quantitative
quant
weightage has been adjusted. The Norms in New Delhi have been relaxed by 50% as
prescribed.
The following is the adjusted number of units which are necessary in the 4 states for a rating
of Average/Good and for a rating of Very Good/Outstanding;
108
762
113525/2018/NM
1400 1290
1240
1200
1004
1000
850
762
800 690 Units for Average/Good
600 570
600
Units for Very
Good/Outstanding
400
200
0
Assam New Delhi Chhattisgarh Madhya
Pradesh
Figure 16 Adjusted Rating Scale in New Delhi, Assam, Chhattisgarh and Madhya
Pradesh
The workload of the officers has been assessed in the following categories of entries which
are common across the official Norms of all the 4 States;
St
1. Sessions Trial-A
2. Sessions Trial-B
3. Criminal Revision
4. POTA Cases
5. NDPS Cases
6. Election Petition
7. Civil Appeal
Sessions Trial-A
A refers to the trial of more serious offences. However, it needs to be noted
that the listings under this heading differ from State to State. While the list includes Murder
and Culpable Homicide in all the 4 states, there is variation in terms
terms of the other offences
included in this category. In New Delhi, this category includes cases under 498A, 304B and
364A of IPC and also cases under TADA, POTA and MCOCA. The list in Assam is mostly
same with New Delhi with cases under NDPS substituting the
the cases under MCOCA and the
addition of cases under section 121 of IPC In New Delhi, NDPS cases has been included in
another category which is titled here as Sessions Trial-B.
Trial
109
763
113525/2018/NM
In Chhattisgarh, Sessions Trial-A includes cases on Murder, Culpable Homicide and Dacoity.
In Madhya Pradesh, this category includes Murder, Culpable Homicide, Dowry Death,
Dacoity and other cases where Section 149 (IPC) is involved. In both Chhattisgarh and
Madhya Pradesh, POTA and NDPS cases have been listed separately with separate allocation
of units.
This means that a trial of Dowry Death will be under the heading of Sessions Trial-A of all
States apart from Chhattisgarh. A case under 498-A of IPC will be in category A of Assam
and New Delhi and under category B of Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh.
The distribution betwen civil and criminal cases has been kept equal after complying with the
existing policies regarding proportionality of disposal. Mostly, the disposal benchmark has
been assessed by taking into account one category of civil and criminal case.
Culpable Homicide, 498-A of IPC and Election Petitions

If we consider cases of Culpable Homicide and Election Petition, the judicial officers in the 4
States would be able to avoid the lowest rating and get a rating of Average/Good with the
following figures of disposal;
60
50 50
50
40 42
40 36
32
29
30 Culpable Homicide
19
20 Election Petition
10
0
Assam New Delhi Chhattisgarh Madhya Pradesh

Pradesh
If we consider cases of 498-A of IPC and Election Petition, the judicial officers in the 4
States would be able to avoid the lowest rating and get a rating of Average/Good with the
following figures of disposal;
110
764
113525/2018/NM
60
50 50
50
40 42
40 36 36
32
28
30 498-A IPC
10
0

Pradesh
If we consider cases of Culpable Homicide and Election Petition, the judicial officers in the 4
States would be able to get the highest rating and get a rating of Very Good/Outstanding with
the following figures of disposal;
90 84
80
70 66 65
60 62
60
50 43
40 Culpable Homicide
40 35
20
10
0

Pradesh
If we consider cases of 498-A of IPC and Election Petition, the judicial officers in the 4
States would be able to get the highest rating and get a rating of Very Good/Outstanding with
the following figures of disposal;
111
765
113525/2018/NM
90 84
80
70 66 65
60 62
60 54 52
50
40 498-A IPC
40
20
10
0

Pradesh
The numbers in Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh have changed in the tables dealing with
498-A (IPC) only because of the heading under which 498-A has been listed carries lower
units than the one for Culpable Homicide. In New Delhi and Assam, both the offences have
been listed under the same heading. The difference is most stark in case of Madhya Pradesh.
The differece in the number of units for 498-A and Culpable Homicide in Chhattisgarh is 3
and the corresponding figure in Madhya Pradesh is 6.
POTA Cases, NDPS Cases and Civil Appeals

If we consider cases under POTA and Civil Appeals, the judicial officers in the 4 States
would be able to avoid the lowest rating and get a rating of Average/Good with the following
figures of disposal;
160
140
140
120
100 84
80 72
POTA
60 50
40 Civil Appeal
40 32
18 14
20
0

Pradesh
112
766
113525/2018/NM
If we consider cases under POTA and Civil Appeals, the judicial officers in the 4 States
would be able to get the highest rating of Very Good/Outstanding with the following figures
of disposal;
200
172
150 129 124
100 84 POTA
60
Civil Appeal
50 40
26 25
0

Pradesh
In POTA cases, the numbers in New Delhi and Assam remain the same as they were in cases
of Culpable Homicide. The numbers in Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh change drastically
because of the fact that while Culpable Homicide cases carry 12 and 18 units, cases under
POTA carry 25 units per case in both the States. Civil appeals in New Delhi carry 2 units per
case for the first 30 cases in a quarter and 3 units thereafter. In Assam, a civil appeal carries 6
units. It carries 5 units in Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh.
If we consider cases under NDPS and Civil Appeals, the judicial officers in the 4 States
would be able to avoid the lowest rating and get a rating of Average/Good with the following
figures of disposal;
113
767
113525/2018/NM
160
136
140
120
100 84
80 72
NDPS
60 50 43
40 36 33 Civil Appeal
40
20
0

Pradesh
If we consider cases under NDPS and Civil Appeals, the judicial officers in the 4 States
would be able to get the higest rating of Very Good/Outstanding with the following figures of
disposal;
200
160
150 129 124
100 84 NDPS
60 65 62
44 Civil Appeal
50
0

Pradesh
The numbers for NDPS in Chhattisgarh remain the same as they were for POTA cases and
case of Culpable Homicide. The numbers in New Delhi change because of the fact that NDPS
cases do not carry the same units as Culpable Homicide/POTA cases. The numbers in
Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh vary from both Culpable Homicide and POTA cases as
NDPS cases are listed separately and carry 10 units.
114
768
113525/2018/NM
Culpable Homicide, 498-A, Criminal Revision, POTA, NDPS Civial Appeals and
Election Petition
For Rating of Average/Good

80
72
70
60
60
Culpable Homicide
50 498-A
42
Criminal Revision
40
33 POTA
30 29
30 2525 24 NDPS
21
19 18 Civil Appeal
20
99 99 9 Election Petition
77 77 8 7
10 6 6
3 4 3
0

Pradesh
115
769
113525/2018/NM
For Rating of Very Good/Outstandingg

120
100 96
Culpable Homicide
80 76
498-A
63 62
Criminal Revision
60
51
POTA
45 44
4242
NDPS
40 32 33 31
Civil Appeal
1313 1313 11 13 13
89 8 9 11 7
11
5 5
0

Pradesh
116
770
113525/2018/NM
Analysis of ACR Proforma
The most usual method by which performance of judicial officers is evaluated periodically is
through Annual Confidential Reports. It forms an important part in the promotion criteria in
all the States and provides the most regular assessment of the performance of judicial
officers. We have analyzed the ACR Proforma of all the States (this analysis does not cover
the State of West Bengal as the ACR proforma in West Bengal was not shared with us) from
three primary perspectives;
1. Structure of the ACR Proforma
2. Contents of the ACR Proforma
3. Gradation Scheme in ACR Proforma
A. Structure of the ACR Proforma
Annual Confidential Reports are maintained as a part of performance appraisal mechanism of

the judicial officers in the subordinate judiciary. Different states follow different criteria,
varied yardsticks and diverse queries to assess the quality of a judicial officer. In general, in
all the states, the ACRs are written to adjudge the basic potentialities of a judicial officer
every year in terms of their conduct, integrity, character etc. The obligatory system of
submitting annual confidential reports by the superior authorities is basically to assess the
efficiency of the subordinate officers. Confidential reports are of enormous importance in the
career of a judicial officer as it provides vital inputs for assessing the performance of an
officer and for career advancement as ACR records have a substantial bearing on promotion.
The ACR proforma of different states is based on a similar structure. It usually consists of
four parts where the first and second part of the ACR has to be filled up by the judicial officer
reported upon, the third part has to be filled up by the Reporting authority and the fourth part
has to be filled up by the Reviewing authority. All the ACRs in the initial parts of the deal
with the questions related to the basic information of the officer like his name, designation/
post held, description of his duties, his present description of his official post held, the
number of working days in that year both on judicial and administrative side, queries on the
117
771
113525/2018/NM
casual leave, maternity leave, earned leave or any other leave taken (in Manipur ACR
proforma), the duties related to the attending of seminars, conferences, trainings, date of entry
in service, probation time, marital status, cadre and year of allotment, date of birth, present
post, date of appointment to the present grade, period of absence from the duty, date of filing
annual property returns, the targets and objectives , the quantitative work/ disposal done in
that year, kinds of cases assigned to the officer, performance in implementation of Legal Aid
programme and Lok Adalats, supervision, control and maintenance of the records etc.
The report filled up by the Reporting Authority usually forms the crux of the performance
assessment of a judicial officer. The Reviewing Authority generally supervises if the
Reporting Authority is doing his work properly or not in terms of assessing the subordinate
judicial officers.
Assam
The Annual Confidential Report of the judicial officers in Assam is divided into four parts
viz. Part I, Part II, Part III and Part IV. One of its distinct inclusions in the ACR is that before
Part I of the ACR, the officer reported upon has to fill up the yearly calendar where the
officer is supposed to fill the number of casual leaves he has taken, the number of restricted
holidays, the earned leave, maternity leave (if applicable), commuted leave on medical
ground, extra ordinary leave taken without pay. Also the officer is supposed to fill up the
number of days he has spent on training, seminars and conferences in this initial section.
Part I of the ACR contains fourteen questions on the personal data of the officer which has to
be filled up by the officer. This part contains questions relating to description of his duties,
present description of his official post held, the number of working days in that year both on
judicial and administrative side. The second section of this part deals with the other data that
the officer is supposed to provide regarding his judgments delivered, whether if any adverse
remarks have been passed by any revisional and appellate authorities, the ‘daily work done’
statement, the quantitative target etc. This part also contains two forms in tabular formats.
Form A pertains to the judicial work done by the officer and Form B deals with the
administrative work done by the officer which categorically includes legal aid and assistance
work, participation in Lok Adalats, conducting training and awareness programmes,
compensation allowed and visit to jails and correctional institutions. Part II has to be filled in
by the Reviewing authority and also includes the report of the Registrar (Vigilance). Part III
118
772
113525/2018/NM
containing three questions in total deals with the subjective evaluation of the reviewing
authority with regard to grading, general assessment and subjective satisfaction of the
Reviewing authority over the report submitted by the officer reported upon. Part IV of the
ACR containing five questions is to be filled up by the Accepting Authority and basically
delves upon promotional aspects as to whether the officer is fit to be promoted to a higher
grade or not.
Part II of the ACR proforma deals with the opinion given by the immediate superior authority
of the officer reported upon. This part is divided into 16 questions dealing with the integrity
aspects, state of health, the daily work done by the officer, the performance of the officer,
special achievements if any, disposal of pending cases, the general assessment etc. The
Assessment given by the Reporting officer under question number 8 is again further divided
into 5 Groups. Group A deals with the questions on workload management and basic
temperament of the judicial officer, by querying on the punctuality in attending and leaving
the Court/Office, control over the court proceedings, relationship with the Bar and other
officers and the capacity to motivate, to obtain willing support by his/her own conduct and
inspire confidence in the subordinate staff. Group B deals with issues such as quality of
judgment, timeliness is delivering judgements and fluency. Group C deals with the ability to
manage the workload in an efficient manner by seeking explanation on the disposal of cases
vis-à-vis the pendency of the cases. Group D deals with special marks and the lastly Group E
(meant for fulltime Secretaries of Legal Services Authority as a substitute for questions in
Group-B and Group-C) deals with the legal service involvement and contribution of the
judicial officer which includes legal aid and assistance, implementing innovative work or
scheme, conduction of Lok Adalats, training and awareness programmes, compensations
provided to the victims and institutional visits.
Manipur
The ACR proforma of Judicial officers for the state of Manipur starts with the yearly calendar
which queries on the casual leave, maternity leave, earned leave or any other leave taken. The
duties related to the attending of seminars, conferences, trainings etc. are to be filled in by the
judicial officer reported upon. Whether the court work was paralyzed due to strike, bandh or
full suspension of court work on account of death, the total number of Government holidays
(restricted holidays, notified holidays and long vacation) and working days( both civil and
119
773
113525/2018/NM
criminal) have to be filled in by the judicial officer reported upon in the initial part of the
proforma. The personal data part contains fourteen questions and a table which has seventy-
eight entries to be filled with regard to the judicial work done by the judicial officer. The next
part of the proforma deals with the report of the Vigilance Registrar where categorically the
report deals with the disposal of cases and whether any disciplinary proceedings are pending
against the officer.
The administrative work done by the judicial officer and the review given by the immediate
superior authority is dealt in the next part of the ACR proforma. It contains fifteen questions
divided under four groups. Group A deals with questions on overall workload management
and temperament of the judicial officer. Punctuality in attending and leaving the
Court/Office, control over the court proceedings, relationship with the Bar and other officers
and the capacity to motivate, to obtain willing support by his/her own conduct and inspire
confidence in the subordinate staff and the administrative control over the work entrusted to
the officer is dealt with in this group. Group B deals with questions such as
regularity/promptness in delivering judgments, aspects of brevity and legal as well as factual
reasoning. Group C deals with disposal of cases and Group D deals with questions on
special achievements in the fields of legal aid, mediation, conciliation, integrity, state of
health and overall assessment of the Judicial officer.
Odisha
Annual Confidential Report for Judicial officers in Odisha is termed as “Confidential
Character Roll (CCR)” and it consists of six parts viz. Part I, II, III, IV, V and VI. Part I of
the form is filled up by the judicial officers reported upon. Part II is filled up by the Chief
Judicial Magistrates. Part III of the CCR is filled up by the Hon’ble Chief Justice and the
Registrars in case of officers working in the Registry of the High Court. Part IV of the form is
to be filled up by Judge-in –Charge of the District in case of officers belonging to the cadre of
O.S.J.S (Sr. Br.) except the Registrars of the High Court by the District Judges in case of
officers below the cadre of O.S.J.S (Sr. Br.) working under them / officers of the rank of
O.S.J.S( Senior Branch) competent to write the CCR on deputation to Government in case of
officers discharging judicial work. Part V of the CCR deals with the remarks of the Judges-
in-Charge of the District in case of officers other than those belonging to the cadre of O.S.J.S
(Senior Branch). Part VI of the proforma delves into the remarks of the Standing Committee
120
774
113525/2018/NM
and the Full Court in case of officers other than those belonging to the cadre of O.S.J.S
(Senior Branch). Part III containing eight questions seeks report on the state of health, special
personality traits, report on the officer’s qualities, report on the officer’s abilities, report on
knowledge and performances, aptitude, potential and integrity aspects.
Part II and IV of the CCR deal with the report given by the immediate superior officers on the
subordinate officers. Part II contains four questions dealing on the quantity and quality of
work, integrity aspect and the general information about the officer. Part IV contains eleven
questions dealing with the conduct of business in the office, quality of
judgement/order/award, capacity to motivate and to inspire confidence in subordinate staff,
personal relation with others members of the Bar, public, subordinate staff, state of health,
integrity aspects, promptness in pronouncing judgments, disposal of cases, punctuality and
regularity and proper discussion of law and facts in the judgements pronounced.
Karnataka
Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the state of Karnataka is divided into two parts – Part
A and Part B. Part A has to be filled up by the judicial officer reported upon and Part B has to
be filled by his/her immediate superior. Part A of the ACR consists of four questions where
the queries are on the personal data of the judicial officer like name, designation, number of
working days in the year, number of days during which the judicial officer works, the total
number of leave taken (Earned leave/Commuted leave), the description of monthly work
done by the officer etc.
Part B of the form containing twenty-five questions specifically queries on the quality of
judgment or order given by the officer, his basic interactive capabilities with the members of
the Bar, his/her superiors officers and subordinate staff, the reasoning and clarity aspect,
industrious attitude, promptness in dealing with matters, reputation as to honesty, integrity
and impartiality. An overall view of the officer also finds place in the ACR and special
remarks also need to be given by the immediate superior. Dealing with various ambit of
judicial management, it has to be noted that the indications against each query present in Part
B of the ACR has to be indicated under five types of grading rather than marks which is an
exception when it is compared with the ACR proforma of other states.
121
775
113525/2018/NM
Tamil Nadu
The ACR for judicial officers in the state of Tamil Nadu is in the Form B of the proforma.
Containing twenty five questions in totality, this Form of the ACR proforma includes
indicators like quality of judgement, language, narration, clarity in thought, reasoning,
knowledge of law and procedure, promptness in disposal of current and old cases,
industrious, aptitude for hard work, readiness to take up responsibility, supervision and
control on subordinate judges and on office staff, attitude towards superiors, subordinates and
colleagues, judicial officer’s dignity inside and outside the court, his/her reputation as to
honesty, integrity and impartiality etc.
Chhattisgarh
The confidential report for Judicial Officers in Chhattisgarh is divided into six parts- Part I,II,
III, IV, V and VI. Parts I and II pertains to the personal data of the judicial officer and asks
about the baseline information about the officer reported upon. It includes the name of the
officer, cadre and year of allotment, date of birth, present post, date of appointment to the
present grade, period of absence from the duty, date of filing annual property returns, the
targets and objectives , the quantitative work/ disposal done in that year, kinds of cases
assigned to the officer, performance in implementation of Legal Aid programme and Lok
Adalats, supervision, control and maintenance of the records etc.
Part III and IV contain thirteen questions in total and are to be considered for the purpose of
the study. It includes indicators like the nature and quality of work, quality of output,
knowledge of the sphere of work, leadership and management qualities, interpersonal
relations and team work, relations with the staff and Bar, communication skills, state of
health, integrity, the overall assessment in terms of his/ her strength and shortcomings,
pendency of enquiry and departmental proceedings pending against the officer, if any.
Part V is the remarks given by the reviewing authority and is subjective in its queries while
Part VI of the ACR proforma deals with the remarks given by the reviewing authority.
122
776
113525/2018/NM
Madhya Pradesh
The proforma for recording Annual Confidential Report of Judicial Officers in the state of
Madhya Pradesh has been divided into three parts – Part I, Part II and Part III. Part I of the
form deals with the confidential report of the judicial officer and has to be filled up by the
officers reported upon. It has inscribed in itself twelve questions on the personal data of the
officer and also a table which deals about the statement showing the net disposal of the cases.
The number of disposed off cases whether contested or non-contested, the total number of
pending cases etc. are dealt under this tabular format of Part I of the proforma.
Part II is to be filled by the Portfolio judge in the case of a District Judge and by the District
Judge in case of other Judicial Officers. It contains eight questions and a Grading section.
The questions that are dealt under this part are regarding the quality of work, the quality of
judgement, quantity of work that a judicial officer has done, capacity of management,
leadership, initiative, planning and decision making, inert-personal relationship, state of
health, integrity and a general assessment of the officer with reference to his/her judicial as
well as administrative work and ability, reputation and character, the strengths and
weaknesses etc.
Part III of the ACR is the remark of the Portfolio Judge where the queries are divided into
four and the questions basically deal with the brevity aspect of the District Judge, his fluency
in making conversations and art of writing judgments in English.
Maharashtra
The Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of Judicial officers in Maharashtra has been
prescribed under five forms viz. Forms A to E for the following cadre of judges;
1. Principal District Judges and judges holding equivalent posts

2. District Judges and Sessions Judges/Ad Hoc District and Sessions Judges/ Ad-hoc
District and Session Judges/ Judicial officers of Equivalent Cadre posted on other
establishments doing work of judicial nature
3. Civil Judges Senior Division and Civil Judges Junior Division/ Judicial Officer of
equivalent Cadre posted on other establishments doing work of judicial nature.
123
777
113525/2018/NM
4. Judicial Officers in the Registry and other departments holding only Administrative
Posts.
Each Form has three parts- Part I, Part II and Part III. Part I has been subdivided into Part IA
and Part IB. Part IA deals with the bio-data of the judicial officer. Basically it contains
information such as the name, date of birth, date of entry in service, probation time and
marital status. Part IB deals with the queries of extended information on the officer to be
reported upon and is to be filled up by him/her only. This part contains questions dealing with
the educational qualifications of the officer, his/her home town, place of practice, present
posting and date from which posted, the date of his last promotion and special features of the
duties. Part II of the Form A to D is the feedback and self-appraisal form which has to be
again filled up by the officer reported.
Part III is filled by the reporting authority and deals with disposal of cases, the behavior of
the judicial officer with the colleagues, superiors, staff, members of the Bar, litigants, public,
employees of other departments, the punctuality aspect, behavior of the judicial officer
outside the court, the reputation aspect on his integrity , impartiality and character, remarks
about his administrative work which also includes supervision and control over the staff, the
physical verification of the cases, expedition in correspondence and in complying writs and
orders of the superior courts, the judicial ability of the officer with regard to his knowledge of
law and procedure, his capacity to marshal and appreciate evidence, reasoning, clarity,
precision, language and lucidity.
Gujarat
The Annual Confidential Report for the state of Gujarat is systematically different from that
of other states. The ACR proforma has been divided into four forms – Form1, Form 2, Form
3 and Form 4. The District and Sessions Judges have to submit four reports on the judicial
officers on probation. After the probation period is completed, the report is submitted in the
Annexure G4 format as prescribed under the High Court Circulars.
124
778
113525/2018/NM
Form 1
This is the first report that has to be submitted by the District and Sessions Judges at the end
of six months from the date of appointment of the judicial officer. This part contains
seventeen questions pertaining to the name of the officer, the period for which the report has
been made, the period for which the civil Judge has watched the proceedings in Civil and
Criminal Courts, whether the judicial officer has properly taken down the notes of the cases
attended by him/her, opinion of the district Judge on the notes taken down, the knowledge of
the judicial officer and whether he has read the civil and criminal manuals, the satisfaction of
the District Judge on the Civil Judge as to whether he has acquired sufficient knowledge of
the instructions contained in the Manuals, the interest taken by the judicial officer and
familiarizing himself with the administrative/accounts and office work etc. Basically, there
are queries in this particular section regarding his involvement in the judicial work. This part
does not include any grading system nor does it have quantitative yardsticks to measure the
same.
Form 2
This is the second report in the proforma and has to be submitted by the District and Sessions
Judge on the completion of nine months from the date of appointment of the Civil Judge or at
the time of transfer, whichever is earlier. This part contains fifteen questions pertaining to the
basic information like the name of the officer and the period for which the work was under
observation, and more specific questions on the ability, initiative grasp, drive resourcefulness,
knowledge of law and procedure, willingness to acquire knowledge on law and procedure,
quality of judgments, judicial qualities, administrative capacity, knowledge of administrative
work and office routine, knowledge of civil and criminal manual and accounts code, disposal
of cases, punctuality and diligence, integrity, character , conduct, attitude towards Bar and
public, etc. of the judicial officer reported upon.
No quantitative yardsticks or no grading systems are assigned in this part like Form 1 to
quantify the information of the judicial officer.
125
779
113525/2018/NM
Form 3
This part of the ACR proforma is used by the District Judge to submit report on the Civil
Judge who has completed 15 months (Form III) of probation successfully and the same
proforma is used when the Civil Judge completes 21 months (Form IV) of successful
probation. The questions in both the forms same but as a mandate, two reports have to be
submitted on the completion of 15 and 21 months respectively (same proforma has to be used
for both the reports). This part contains twenty-eight questions pertaining to the basic
information and some in-depth information as well. Questions pertaining to integrity,
personality, state of health, initiative, tactfulness, diligence and industry, politeness and
courtesy, relationship with colleagues, maintaining judicial aloofness, ability, initiative grasp,
drive resourcefulness, knowledge of law and procedure, willingness to acquire knowledge of
law and procedure, quality of judgments, judicial qualities, administrative capacity,
knowledge of administrative work and office routine, knowledge of civil and criminal manual
and accounts code, disposal of cases, punctuality and diligence, integrity, character , conduct,
attitude towards Bar and public, etc. are questioned upon. Like the other annexure, this part
of the proforma does not give quantitative yardsticks nor adopts grading system for
quantifying information.
Form 4
The Annual Confidential Report in respect of the Civil Judges who have successfully
completed their probation for the state of Gujarat is divided into four parts and is in Form IV
of the Annexure G4 of the proforma. Parts I and II of the form specifically deal with the
personal information of the judicial officer and has to be filled up by the officer concerned.
Particular entries on name, designation, present station, date of birth, period of absence from
duty on account of leave or training, date of filing the annual property return, handling of old
matters in order of seniority, overall disposal of cases, disposal of heavily contested matters,
punctuality and regularity, recording of evidence, overruling of objections, application of
principles of evidence, discussion of law and facts in the judgments and orders, capacity to
understand, discern and apply ratio of decisions of the Supreme and High Court, and
knowledge of basic principles of account keeping etc. Part IV contains submissions by the
Reviewing authority.
126
780
113525/2018/NM
Head I of the part has 35 marks allotted to it and the submissions would be quantitative but it
does not have specific indicators as to how these marks have to be allocated. Head II
containing 6 parts has quantitative indicators from Part 1 to 5 but Part 6 is subjective in
nature and the grading format is adopted.
Part III of the proforma concerns the subject matter of the study because it is filled by the
reporting authority and consists of twenty seven questions. This part of the proforma is
divided into two heads: Head I and Head II. Head I deals with the comments on the previous
parts of the proforma and the reporting authority has to specifically agree or disagree on the
responses given by the officer himself. Head II is divided into six parts: Part 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and
6. Part 1 deals with the Character related queries like the officers integrity, judicial aloofness,
mixing with his company etc. Part 2 deals with questions on personal characteristics and
queries on the personality, state of health, general knowledge, clarity of thought and
expression, initiatives, tactfulness, diligence, politeness, courtesy and relationship with
colleagues. Part 3 deals with administrative capabilities, control over the staff, knowledge of
the administrative rules, interest in office work, treatment of the members of the staff,
treatment of the members of the Bar, performance as a Master Trainer or ICT trainer, his/her
interest in Legal services and mediation etc. Part 4 deals with the knowledge of law that
whether he/she has sufficient understanding and grounding in law, his reading habits and
his/her art of keeping abreast with the recent case laws etc. Part 5 deals with method of
writing judgment, discussion and appreciation of evidence, language, presentation and
precision in writing the same.
Part 6 of Head II deals with the reporting officer’s overall assessment and grading of the
Judge reported upon and is divided under five heads : Outstanding, Very Good, Good, Fair
and Poor. This part also deals with whether the officer is fit for promotion or not.
New Delhi
The ACR proforma for the Delhi High Court is divided into four parts – Part I, II, III and IV.
Part I deals with the personal data of the judicial officer and contains eight questions
querying on the name, date of birth, date of continuous appointment to present grade, present
posting and the date from which posted, period of absence from duty, special features of his
duty and the date of filing the Annual Property return. Part II of the ACR contains ten
127
781
113525/2018/NM
questions dealing with the extended personal data of the judicial officer like academics and
professional achievements during the year, any articles/books published, attendance in
seminars/conferences/ training programmes, steps taken to dispose of pending cases which
are more than 7 years old, steps taken to dispose of cases of persons who are more than 65
years of age etc.
Part III of the ACR which is the remarks of the Inspecting judges or the report of the
immediate superior officer is to be considered for the purpose of the study. It contains ten
questions in total delving onto the knowledge of law, impression during inspection that is
how the officer conducts his court, his behavior, clarity, precision, ability of writing and
dictating judgments properly, areas in which counselled during inspection, grading of
judgements, efficiency, judicial reputation aspects in totality. Remarks of the Full Court are
dealt with in Part IV of the ACR.
Uttar Pradesh
The confidential report of the judicial officers in Uttar Pradesh is titled as “Annual
Confidential Remarks”. It contains twenty-six questions in total. It is a single-fractioned ACR
proforma where it starts with the name of the officer, the length of his service, post held
during the year under report. The reporting authority on the judicial officer has to prepare the
report upon the questions in the ACR which includes in its first place the remarks of the
District Judge regarding the integrity of the officer, the impartiality and fairness of the
judicial office, the composure and temperament of the officer, the aspect of his private
character, control over his judicial responsibilities like proper fixation of cause list, avoidance
of unnecessary judgements, disposal of old cases, granting/refusal/retaining of interim orders
or injunctions for justified and sufficient reasons and number of cases remanded on
substantial grounds. Marshalling of facts, appreciation of evidence, application of law while
delivering and writing judgment also form a basic query in the ACR. The temperament and
the ability to manage workload efficiently is determined in the ACR by the questions asked
on the relations the officer shares with the members of the Bar, behavior with the brother
officers, the officers’ amenability to the advice of the District Judge and other superior
officers, his behavior towards women, the respect and sensibility exhibited towards them (
query on respect to women was inserted in 2007), the punctuality and regularity aspect, state
of health and special remarks.
128
782
113525/2018/NM
B. Contents of the ACR Proforma
For analyzing the contents of the ACR Proforma, the focus is only on that part of the ACR
Proforma in each State which is filled by the immediate superior of the judicial officer whose
performance is being assessed. The part of the ACR Proforma which is filled up by the
reporting officer usually represents the most substantial and direct assessment of the
performance of a judicial officers. The Reviewing/Accepting authorities in relation to the
ACR Proforma are generally not expected to be directly aware about the overall performance
of a judicial officer. Analysing the content of the ACR Proforma facilitates an understanding
of the various parameters on the basis of which the performance of judicial officers is being
assessed.
After perusing the contents of the ACR Proforma in all the States, the questions in the ACR
Proforma have been distributed into the following broad categories;
1. Category 1- Knowledge of Law

2. Category 2- Character Traits
3. Category 3- Temperament
4. Category 4- Communication skills
5. Category 5- Workload Management.
6. Category 6- Others
These categories reflect the range of parameters on the basis of which the performance of a
judicial officer is assessed. The identification of these categories is based on the scrutiny of
the questions and issues covered in the ACR Proforma of various States.
The first category i.e. “Knowledge of law” encompasses attributes of factual and legal
reasoning of the subject matter concerned, appreciation of facts, application of law, clarity of
conclusion, capacity to marshal, appreciating evidence etc. It includes both the ability to
interpret the law and to apply legal principles to the facts of different cases.
129
783
113525/2018/NM
The second category dealing with the “Character Traits” basically deals with the attributes
of independence and integrity. The various issues and questions in this category deal with the
honesty, impartiality, fairness and other such attributes in judicial officers which are deemed
indispensible for a due discharge of duties.
The third category “Temperament” includes attitudinal and behavioural aspects of the
conduct of judicial officers. It includes issues of courteous dealings and general demeanor of
judicial officers. The relationship with the officers of the Bar, public, staff, relationship with
the litigants, behavior with his colleagues and superiors, behavior outside the court etc. are
included in this category. Questions on temperament of judicial officers included in the ACR
proforma in different states include the attributes of patience, open-mindedness, courtesy,
tact, courage, understanding, compassion, humility etc.
The fourth category deals with the “Communication Skills” of judicial officers. Different
states have different criterion for assessing the succinctness, compendiousness and economy
of language used by the judicial officers whether during interaction or while writing a
judgement. Wherein the ACR proforma in Maharashtra heads it under clarity, precision,
language and lucidity, the ACR proforma of Assam assesses it under the heading of brevity.
Basically this section of the study takes a sweep on the ability of a judicial officer to express
himself/herself clearly and concisely, whether orally or in writing.
The fifth category of “Workload Management” deals with the capacity of a judicial
officer to manage his overall workload, judicial and administrative. Punctuality in attending
and leaving Court or Office, control over court proceedings, timeliness in delivering the
judgments and orders, the ability to dispose of the cases promptly, disposal of the pending
cases, the quantity of work done etc. are the points that are included in different ACR
proforma of different states to assess this categorical exposition.
The sixth and the last category “Others” includes all other miscellaneous and diverse
indicators of attribute assessment of judicial officers those are not included in the
abovementioned five categories. Attributes like general overall assessment of the officer with
reference to his/her judicial, administrative work and ability, strength and shortcomings those
are not included in other parts of the ACR, state of health, contribution to the legal services,
legal aid and assistance, any innovative work or scheme implemented by the judicial officer,
130
784
113525/2018/NM
participation in Lok Adalats, conduction of training and awareness programmes, provision of

compensation to the victims, timely visits to Jails/short stay home/ institutions etc. are
included in this category.
Best Practice
Assam
The distribution of the contents of ACR Proforma in Assam is as follows;
Assam
7
6
5
4 7
3
2 4
1 2
1 1 1 Assam
0
Figure 27 Contents of ACR in Assam
131
785
113525/2018/NM
Manipur
The distribution of the contents of ACR Proforma in Manipur is as follows;
Manipur
4
3.5
3
2.5
2 4
1.5 3
1 2
0.5 1 1 1 Manipur
0
Figure 28 Contents of ACR in Manipur
Odisha
The distribution of the contents of ACR Proforma of Judicial Magistrates in Odisha is as
follows;
Odisha
Odisha-Judicial Magistrates
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5 1 1 1 1
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1 Odisha-Judicial
Judicial Magistrate
0 0 0
Figure 29Contents
Contents of ACR in Odisha-1
Odisha
132
786
113525/2018/NM
The distribution of the contents of ACR Proforma of officers in Cadre of O.S.J.S (Sr. Branch)
in Odisha is as follows;
Odisha- OSJS
4
3.5
3
2.5
2 4
1.5 3
1 2 2
0.5 1 Odisha- OSJS
0 0
Figure 30Contents
Contents of ACR in Odisha-2
Odisha
Karnataka
The distribution of the contents of ACR Proforma in Karnataka is as follows;
Karnataka
9
8
7
6
5 9
4
3 5
2 3 3 3
1 2 Karnataka
0
Figure 31Contents
Contents of ACR in Karnataka
133
787
113525/2018/NM
Tamil Nadu
The distribution of the contents of ACR Proforma in Tamil Nadu is as follows;
Tamil Nadu
9
8
7
6
5 9
4
3 5
2 3 3 3
1 2 Tamil Nadu
0
Figure 32Contents
Contents of ACR in Tamil Nadu
Chhattisgarh
The distribution of the contents of ACR Proforma in Chhattisgarh is as follows;
Chhattisgarh
3
2.5
2
1.5 3 3
1 2 2 2
0.5 1
Chhattisgarh
0
Figure 33Contents
Contents of ACR in Chhattisgarh
134
788
113525/2018/NM
Madhya Pradesh
The distribution of the contents of ACR Proforma in Madhya Pradesh is as follows;
Madhya Pradesh
3
2.5
2
1.5 3 3
1 2
0.5 1 1 1
Madhya Pradesh
0
Figure 34Contents
Contents of ACR in Madhya Pradesh
135
789
113525/2018/NM
Maharashtra
The distribution of the contents of ACR Proforma in Maharashtra is as follows;
The distribution of the contents of ACR Proforma of Principal District Judges in Maharashtra
is as follows;
Maharashtra-1
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5 5
2
1.5 3 3
1
0.5 1 1 1
Maharashtra-1
0
Figure 35 Contents of ACR in Maharashtra-1

Maharashtra
The distribution of the contents of ACR Proforma of District and Sessions Judges and Civil
Judges (Senior and Junior) in Maharashtra is as follows;
Maharashtra-2
6
5
4
3 6
5
2 3
1 1 1 1 Maharashtra-2
0
Figure 36 Contents of ACR in Maharashtra-2

Maharashtra
136
790
113525/2018/NM
Gujarat
Forms 1, 2 and 3 in the ACR proforma of Gujarat deal with the performance assessment of
the judicial officers on probation. Forms 1, 2 and 3 are applicable when the officer has
completed 6 months, 9 months and 15 months in service. The distribution of content in the
ACR proforma as provided in Forms 1, 2 and 3 is as follows;
14
12
12
10
8
8
6
6 5 5 5
4 4 4 Gujarat 1
4 3
Gujarat 2
2 1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0 Gujarat 3
0
Figure 37 Contents of ACR in Gujarat-1, 2 and 3
137
791
113525/2018/NM
Form
orm 4 in the ACR proforma of Gujarat deals the performance assessment of all other
judicial officers. The distribution of content in the
the ACR proforma as provided in Form 4 is as
follows;
Gujarat 4
8
7
6
5
4 8
3 5
2 4 4 4
1 2 Gujarat 4
0
Figure 38 Contents of ACR in Gujarat-4

Gujarat
New Delhi
The distribution of the contents of ACR Proforma in New Delhi is as follows;
New Delhi
3
2.5
2
1.5 3 3
1 2
0.5 1 1 1
New Delhi
0
Figure 39 Contents of ACR in New Delhi
138
792
113525/2018/NM
Uttar Pradesh
The distribution of the contents of ACR Proforma in Uttar Pradesh is as follows;
Uttar Pradesh
9
8
7
6
5 9
4 7
3 5
2 3
1 2 Uttar Pradesh
1
0
Figure 40 Contents of ACR in Uttar Pradesh
Comparative Distribution of ACR Contents
100%
90% 1 1
1 3 5 5 3
80% 4 4 2
6 3 9
70% 7 2
0 1 3 3 1
60% 1 0
6
50% 2 1 1
1 3
5 Workload Management
40% 1 3 3 9 9 2 5
2 5 Communication Skills
30% 2
2 2
20% 1 3 Temperament
1 1 1
10% 1 3 1 3 3 1
2 Character Traits
1 2 6 1
0% 1 3 3
3 3 7 Knowledge of Law
1
Figure 41 Comparative Distribution of ACR Contents
139
793
113525/2018/NM
C. Rating Scheme in ACR Proforma
In majority of the States, a rating scheme has been specified for the evaluation of the judicial
officers. After the assessment of the judicial officers on the parameters set forth in the ACR
proforma, they are given a rating such as Good, Average, Outstanding etc. There is variation
in the scale of ratings and also in the description of ratings. For example, while in Assam,
there is a 4 point rating scale, in Manipur there is a 5 point rating scale. Even in States which
have a rating scheme of similar points, there are variations in the description of the ratings. In
Odisha, the 5 point rating scale has ratings of Poor, Average, Good, Very Good and
Outstanding. In Karnataka, the 5 point rating scale has ratings of Unsatisfactory, Satisfactory,
Good, Very Good and Excellent. The nature of this variance is best exemplified by the
following tables;
Table 41-States with 5 Points Rating Scale in ACR

State Rating 1 Rating 2 Rating 3 Rating 4 Rating 5
Manipur Below Average Good Very Good Outstanding
Average
Odisha Poor Average Good Very Good Outstanding
Chhattisgarh Below Average Good Very Good Outstanding
Average
Karnataka Unsatisfactory Satisfactory Good Very Good Excellent
Tamil Nadu Below Average Good Very Good Excellent
Average
Uttar Poor Average Good Very Good Outstanding
Pradesh
Gujarat Poor Fair Good Very Good Outstanding
140
794
113525/2018/NM
Table 42-States with 6 Points Rating Scale in ACR

State Rating 1 Rating 2 Rating 3 Rating 4 Rating 5 Rating 6
Madhya Poor Average Good Very Excellent Outstanding
Pradesh Good
Maharashtra Below Average Good Positively Very Outstanding
Average Good Good
Assam has a 4 points rating scale of Average, Good, Very Good and Outstanding. In New
Delhi, no rating scheme has been specified in the ACR but the fifth question of the Part III
speaks about grading of judgments and is divided into four ratings – Below Average,
Average, Good and Very Good.
Best Practice
In terms of the range of the rating scale, the best practice can be seen in Manipur, Odisha,
Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh which have a 5 point rating
scale. A 5 point rating scale provides a reasonable range to categorise the different
performance levels of judicial officers. A 5 point rating scale provides the facility of a Middle
rating of satisfactory performance with two ratings dedicated for below satisfactory
performance and two ratings dedicated to above satisfactory performance which provides an
even distribution of gradations.
i. Quantitative Yardstick
While a rating scheme has been prescribed in each State, there is no quantitative yardstick for
determining the applicability of a rating in most of the States. Only in Assam, Manipur and
Maharashtra, there is a clear demarcation of marks for different criteria of assessment in the
ACR Proforma and the ratings awarded to a judicial officer are based on the cumulative
marks awarded to him/her.
141
795
113525/2018/NM
The scheme in these four States has been outlined below;

Table 43-Quantitative Yardstick for ACR in Assam
Assam Gradation Points
Average Below 60
Good 61 to 74
Very Good 75 to 89
Outstanding 90 and above
Table 44-Quantitative Yardstick for ACR in Manipur

Manipur Gradation Points
Below Average Below 60
Average 60 to 89
Good 90 to 109
Very Good 110 to 125
Outstanding 126 to 150
Table 45-Quantitative Yardstick for ACR in Maharashtra

Maharashtra Gradation Points
Below Average Below 40
Average 41 to 50
Good 51 to 60
Positively Good 61 to 70
Very Good 71 to 80
Outstanding Above 80
Table 46-Quantitative Yardstick for ACR in Gujarat

Gujarat Gradation Points
Poor Below 40
Fair 40 to 50
Good 51 to 60
Very Good 61 to 75
Outstanding Above 75
142
796
113525/2018/NM
Comparative Distribution of Weightage of ACR Contents
100% 0
90% 20
80% 5
20 20
70% 20 5 85
60% 20
50% 40
40% 10
30% 10
20% 40 20 50 15 Manipur
10% 4.15
0% 10 20.85
4.15 5 Assam
20.85
5 Maharashtra-2
Maharashtra 1
Figure 42 Comparative Distribution of Weightage of ACR Contents
In Gujarat, marks have been allotted not to specific questions but sub-categories
categories of questions
as outlined in the proforma. Thus, it was not possible to calculate the distribution of the
marks as per the categorisation of questions which was applied for other states. Thus, an
assessment of the self-appraisal
appraisal report of the judicial officer is assessed for 35 marks. There
are 9 questions under the heading of Personality Traits which in total are worth 20 marks.
Similarly, 15 marks are allotted in total for 9 questions listed under the heading of
Administrative Capacity. 15 marks
marks are allotted for the subcategories of Knowledge of Law
and Method of Writing Judgement. It is a remarkable feature in Gujarat that no marks have
been allotted for assessing the sub-category
sub category of ‘Character’ which has 4 questions.
Best Practice
In termss of hierarchical distribution of marks for different categories of questions in the ACR
proforma, the best practice can be seen in Maharashtra. The qualitative assessment of the
legal knowledge of judicial officers has been earmarked with maximum weightage.
weightag In Assam
and Manipur, maximum weightage has been given to question pertaining to workload
management (disposal records, administrative duties etc). While maintaining a reasonable
disposal record should be an obvious priority, it is submitted that a disproportionate
disp
weightage to the quantitative output of judicial officers is more likely to subvert the ends of
143
797
113525/2018/NM
justice. If a judge is delivering greater number of judgements with a weak knowledge of law,
it would mean that a great many people are likely to suffer injustice due to this.
In terms of choosing appropriate questions which should have quantitative measurements, the
better practice can be seen in Assam and Manipur and Gujarat. While it may be desirable to
have a quantitative measurement of all the aspects of performance, it is inevitable that certain
qualities are not capable of being quantitatively measured. Thus, in Assam, Manipur and
Gujarat though there are questions pertaining to the integrity of a judge, the same has not
been attributed any quantitative weightage. There does not seem to be a way by which the
integrity of a judge can be objectively verified and different degrees of integrity awarded
different marks.
Apart from the questions of integrity, it may at times be valid to argue that there cannot be
objective assessment of quantitative measures in relation to certain questions or that even if it
is possible, the same cannot be implemented due to practical or logistical challenges. In such
a situation, it may be preferable not to allot any quantitative weightage to such questions as
the marking is bound to be a product of unguided discretion. In the alternative, the weightage
in relation to such questions should be marginal.
i. Assessment Technique
Even in the States where a quantitative yardstick has been prescribed for different ratings by
specifying the marks to be awarded under different parameters, there is usually no clarity on
the assessment technique to be employed for such parameters. For example, when 5 marks
are to be awarded for the behaviour of a judicial officer towards lawyers, there is no clarity
on what parameters the marks are to be awarded. There are no guidelines on when a judicial
officer will be awarded 4 marks and when 3. There are no guidelines as to how the
judgements of the judicial officers will be evaluated. How many judgements will be
evaluated and of which category? How many marks will be given for legal reasoning? How
many marks for factual narration? How many marks for application of legal principles to a
factual situation? Without clarity on such issues, the process of assessment is likely to be
characterised by a highly individual and subjective disparities.
144
798
113525/2018/NM
In the absence of any institutionalized guidelines on the evaluation parameters, any appraisal
exercise has the possibility of being abused. It would be possible for a superior officer to be
guided by personalized considerations and manipulate the parameters of evaluation as and
when it suits him/her.
Best Practice
Assessment technique has been provided for marking disposal of cases in Maharashtra. It has
been mandated that the marks to be given are linked with the quantitative benchmark earned
by the officer. Thus, an officer gets 5 out of 5 for having earned the highest rating of
‘Excellent’, 2 marks for Very Good, 3 marks for Good and 2 marks for Adequate. These
marks are awarded for disposals achieved in every 4 months.
145
799
113525/2018/NM
Analysis of the Schemes of Promotion

In all the states, the promotion schemes are mentioned in the Rules made by the Governor (in
case of states) or by the President (in case of union territories) in exercise of the powers
conferred by the Constitution. In some states like Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, New Delhi
and Uttar Pradesh, there are two different rules, one to deal with higher judiciary [district
judges cadre] and the other meant for the lower judiciary [civil judges (junior division) cadre
and senior civil judges cadre]. In other states, there is single Rule to deal with all the cadres
of judicial officers.
For the sake of convenience, the terms ‘civil judges (junior division)’, ‘senior civil judges’
and ‘district judges’ have been used uniformly. Some states use the term ‘civil judges’ to
mean the judicial officers in the cadre of civil judges (junior division) while some states use
the term ‘civil judges (senior division)’ to mean the judicial officers in the cadre of ‘senior
civil judges’. In Assam and Manipur, the term ‘Grade I’ denotes judicial officers in the cadre
of district judges, the term ‘Grade II’ denotes judicial officers in the cadre of senior civil
judges and ‘Grade III’ denotes judicial officers in the cadre of civil judges (junior division).
The focus of this analysis is the promotion schemes prevalent in different states concerning
promotions of judges to different cadres. Promotion in some states from one scale to another
within the same cadre has not been analysed. The promotion schemes are analyzed under the
following broad conceptual headings:
1. Overall scheme of Promotion

2. Eligibility for Promotion
3. Criteria of Promotion
4. Assessment Technique
A. Overall Scheme of Promotion
This section deals with the overall schemes of promotion in different states in relation to
different cadres of judicial officers and the breakup of vacancy for promotions of different
kind. For the sake of convenience, the terms ‘regular promotion’, ‘accelerated promotion’
146
800
113525/2018/NM
and ‘direct recruitment’ have been used uniformly. Regular promotion is the promotion
where the judicial officers are promoted based on the principle of ‘merit
‘merit cum seniority’ or
based on the principle of ‘seniority cum merit’. When the judicial officers are promoted
based on the principle of ‘merit’, it is called accelerated promotion. Some states use the term
‘usual promotion’ to mean regular promotion. ‘Direct
‘Direct recruitment’ is the mode of recruitment
where the posts are filled by way of direct appointment and not through in-
in-cadre promotion.
In all the states, the post of civil judges (junior division) is filled by direct recruitment. The
civil judges (junior
or division) are promoted as senior civil judges usually based on the
principle of merit cum seniority (or seniority cum merit) but sometimes, the promotions are
also made on the principle of merit (in Maharashtra). The senior civil judges are promoted as
district judges. Apart from this, the district judges are also directly recruited through a
competitive examination. There are two ways of promotion-
promotion regular promotion (based on the
principle of merit cum seniority or seniority cum merit) and accelerated promotion
promotion (based on
the principle of merit).
Senior civil
• Direct recruitment judge • Regular promotion
• Regular promotion • Accelerated
promotion
• Accelerated
promotion • Direct recruitment
Civil judge
District judge
(junior division)
Figure 43 Overview of Promotion Structure
i. Promotion as Senior Civil Judges

States where promotion to the cadre of senior civil judge is based on the principle of merit
cum seniority:
1. Odisha
2. West Bengal
147
801
113525/2018/NM
3. Tamil Nadu
4. Chhattisgarh
5. Madhya Pradesh
6. Maharashtra (a portion of the vacancy)
7. Gujarat
8. New Delhi
9. Uttar Pradesh
States where promotion to the cadre of senior civil judge is based on the principle of seniority
cum merit
1. Assam
2. Manipur
3. Karnataka
States where promotion to the cadre of senior civil judge is based on the principle of merit
1. Maharashtra (a portion of the vacancy)
In Maharashtra, promotion to the cadre of senior civil judges is based on the principles of
‘merit cum seniority’ and ‘merit’. The breakup of vacancy to the post of senior civil judge is
as follows:
Table 47-Vacancy Break up in maharashtra for Senior Civil Judge

Mode of promotion Percentage of vacancy
Regular Promotion 90% of the vacancy
Accelerated Promotion 10% of the vacancy
ii. Promotion as District Judges
All the states have three modes of appointment to the cadre of district judges- regular
promotion, accelerated promotion and direct recruitment and the breakup of the vacancy is
usually 65%, 10% and 25% respectively but in some states like Assam, Manipur and Madhya
Pradesh, the breakup of vacancy is 50%, 25% and 25% respectively. In Karnataka, the
148
802
113525/2018/NM
regular promotion of senior civil judges as district judges is based on the principle of
seniority cum merit. In other states, the regular promotion of senior civil judges as district
judges is based on the principle of merit cum seniority.
Breakup of the vacancy

Regular promotion Accelerated promotion Direct recruitment
Other states
25%
10%
65%
Figure 44 Breakup of Vacancy for Appointment as District Judges
Breakup of the vacancy

Regular promotion Accelerated promotion Direct recruitment
Assam
Manipur
Madhya Pradesh
25%
50%
25%
Figure 45 Breakup of Vacancy for Appointment as District Judges in Assam, Manipur

and Madhya Pradesh
149
803
113525/2018/NM
Best Practice
In states like Odisha, West Bengal, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra,
Gujarat, New Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, the breakup of vacancy is 65%, 10% and 25% for regular
promotion, accelerated promotion and direct recruitment respectively. An objective and
transparent assessment of merit is fundamental to the concept of accelerated promotion. Thus,
unless there is a detailed, well defined and transparent procedural framework, the percentage
of vacancy may not be extended beyond 10%
B. Eligibility for Promotion

Conditions of eligibility are usually in the form a minimum number of years in the feeder
cadre or in the service in general.
i. Eligibility for Promotion as Senior Civil Judge

Usually, the minimum number of years of service in the cadre of civil judge (junior division)
is five years for the judicial officer to be considered for promotion. In West Bengal, the civil
judge (junior division) should be in service for six years to be considered for promotion to the
cadre of senior civil judge. In Maharashtra, a civil judge (junior division) has to be in service
for at least three years after the successful completion of probationary period (three years) to
be eligible for promotion (both regular promotion and accelerated promotion) to the cadre of
senior civil judge. However, in some states, like Tamil Nadu, Chhattisgarh and Uttar Pradesh,
there is no requirement of minimum number of years of service in the feeder cadre.
ii. Eligibility for Regular Promotion as District Judge

Usually, there is no requirement of a minimum number of years of service in the cadre of
senior civil judge for a judicial officer to be eligible for regular promotion to the cadre of
district judge. But, some states have prescribed a minimum number of years of service in the
feeder cadre. In Odisha, the judicial officer has to be in the service as a senior civil judge for
no less than three years to be eligible for regular promotion to the cadre of district judge. In
Maharashtra, the judicial officer has to serve as a senior civil judge for at least five years after
successful completion of officiating period (two years) to be eligible for regular promotion to
the cadre of district judge.
150
804
113525/2018/NM
In Gujarat, the judicial officer has to serve as senior civil judge for not less than two years to
be eligible for regular promotion to the cadre of district judge. In New Delhi, the judicial
officer has to serve as a judicial officer for ten years to be eligible for regular promotion to
the cadre of district judge.
iii. Eligibility for Accelerated Promotion as District Judge

Usually, the minimum number of years of service as a senior civil judge is five years for the
judicial officer to be considered for accelerated promotion to the cadre of district judge.
However, in Maharashtra, the five year period is counted after the successful completion of
officiating period (two years). In Tamil Nadu, there is no minimum number of years of
service in the cadre of senior civil judges for the judicial officer to be eligible for accelerated
promotion.
Best Practice
In relation to promotion to the cadre of Senior Civil Judge or regulation promotion as District
Judge, it would not be appropriate to comment on the best practice in this respect as the
prescription regarding minimum number of years as an eligibility condition would be
dependent on many local considerations such as hierarchical structure of the judiciary, the
structure of the training programme. As seniority as such plays a role in the promotion (apart
from accelerated promotion), there need not be the necessity to have a uniform prescription in
this respect. However, in relation accelerated promotion as District Judge, it would be ideal to
have a specified eligibility condition in this respect. The standard prescription of 5 years of
service may be considered as best practice.
Below are the eligibility criteria for promotion of judicial officers to different cadres in the
different states:
151
805
113525/2018/NM
Assam
Table 48-Eligibility Conditions in Assam
Cadre Eligibility criteria
Grade III to Grade II The judicial officer must have served in the
cadre of Grade III judicial officer for not less
than five years.
Principle: seniority cum merit
Grade II to Grade I Regular promotion: The judicial officer
must have served in the cadre of Grade II
judicial officer.
Principle: merit cum seniority
Accelerated promotion: The judicial officer
must have served in the cadre of Grade II
judicial officer for not less than five years.
Principle: merit
Manipur
Table 49-Eligibility Conditions In Manipur

Grade III to Grade II The judicial officer should have served in the
cadre of Grade III for a period not less than
five years.
Grade II to Grade I Regular promotion: The judicial officer
should be in service in Grade II cadre.
should be in regular service in Grade II cadre
for not less than five years.
Principle: merit
152
806
113525/2018/NM
Odisha
Table 50-Eligibility Conditions in Odisha

Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Senior The judicial officer must have served in the
Civil Judge cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division) for
not less than five years.
Principle: Merit cum seniority
Senior Civil Judge to District Judge Regular Promotion: The judicial officer
must have served in the cadre of Senior
Civil Judge for not less than three years for
regular promotion.
Accelerated Promotion: The judicial
officer must have served in the cadre of
Senior Civil Judge for not less than five
years for accelerated promotion.
Principle: Merit
West Bengal
Table 51-Eligibility Conditions in West Bengal

Civil Judge to Senior Civil Judge The judicial officer should be in service as a
Civil Judge for six years.
should be in service as a Civil Judge (Senior
Division).
Accelerated Promotion: The judicial officer
153
807
113525/2018/NM
Division) for not less than five years.

Principle: Merit
Karnataka
Table 52-Eligibility Conditions in Karnataka

Civil Judge (Junior Division) for not less than
five years.
Division).
Division) for not less than five years.
Principle: merit
Tamil Nadu
Table 53-Eligibility Conditions in Tamil Nadu

Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Senior The judicial officer should be in service as a
Civil Judge Civil Judge
154
808
113525/2018/NM

Division).
Division).
Principle: Merit
Chhattisgarh
Table 54-Eligibility Conditions in Chhattisgarh

Civil Judge
Division).
Division) for minimum of five years.
Principle: Merit
Madhya Pradesh
Table 55-Eligibility Conditions in Madhya Pradesh

Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Senior The judicial officer must be in the cadre of
Civil Judge Civil Judge (Junior Division) for five years
of continuous service.
Principle- merit cum seniority
155
809
113525/2018/NM
Senior Civil Judge to District Judge Regular promotion: The judicial officer
must have served in the cadre of Senior Civil
Judge
Principle- merit cum seniority
must have served in the cadre of Senior Civil
Judge for not less than five years for
accelerated promotion.
Principle- merit through limited competitive
examination.
Maharashtra
Table 56-Eligibility Conditions in Maharashtra

Civil Judges, Junior Division to Senior Regular promotion: The judicial officer
Civil Judges must have served in the cadre of Civil Judge,
Junior Division for at least three years from
the successful completion of probationary
period
must have served in the cadre of Civil Judge,
Junior Division for at least three years from
the successful completion of probationary
period
Principle: merit
Senior Civil Judges to District Judges Regular promotion: The judicial officer
must have been officiating as a Senior Civil
Judge for at least five years and must have
been in the cadre of Senior Civil Judge after
successful completion of officiating period.
156
810
113525/2018/NM

must have been officiating as a Senior Civil
Judge for at least five years and must have
been in the cadre of Senior Civil Judge after
successful completion of officiating period.
Principle: merit
Gujarat
Table 57-Eligibility Conditions in Gujarat
Civil Judge to Senior Civil Judge The judicial officer must have served in the
cadre of Civil Judges (Junior Division) for
not less than five years.
must have served in the cadre for not less
than two years.
than five years.
Principle: Merit
New Delhi
Table 58-Eligibility Conditions in New Delhi

Civil Judge to Senior Civil Judge The judicial officer must have served in the
cadre for not less than five years
Principle: Merit cum seniority inferred
157
811
113525/2018/NM
must have been in service for not less than
ten years
than five years.
Principle: Merit
Uttar Pradesh
Table 59-Eligibility Conditions in Uttar Pradesh

Civil Judge (Junior Division) to Senior The judicial officer should be in service in
Civil Judge the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division).
Senior Civil Judge to District Judge Regular promotion: The judicial officer
should be in regular service in Senior Civil
Judges cadre.
should be in regular service in Senior Civil
Judges cadre for not less than five years
qualifying service.
Principle: Merit
158
812
113525/2018/NM
C. Criteria for Promotion as Senior Civil Judges

In any scheme of promotion, the determination of the criteria on which matters of promotion
will be decided reflects the qualities which are valued in the organisation. On most occasions,
principles of ‘merit cum seniority’ or ‘seniority cum merit’ or ‘merit’ are cited as the basis on
which questions of promotion are decided. The criteria of promotion refers to those tangible
parameters which are employed to implement these principles.
It is ideal that along with the criteria, the quantitative weightage of each criterion may also be
determined. Specifying the quantitative weightage provides a more transparent mechanism
and also acts as a check against arbitrariness. It ensures that the priorities of the different
criterion are not manipulated in an arbitrary manner for any reasons whatsoever. It also
provides a clear picture on the relative emphasis given to different criterion.
An examination of the policies prevalent in all the states reveal the following to be the most
common criteria employed by the states for promotion of a judicial officer to the cadre of
senior civil judge;
1. Evaluation of Judgments
2. Evaluation of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs)
3. Disposal Record
4. Character/Integrity
5. Departmental Proceeding/Enquiry
6. Vigilance report
Some of the other criteria incorporated in different states include non-availment of leave
(Karnataka), evaluation of special reports of the Heads of Department (Maharashtra),
suitability and overall performance (Assam and Manipur), viva voce (Chhattisgarh)
i. Judgments
A certain number of judgments, usually, both civil and criminal of the judicial officer
considered for promotion to the cadre of senior civil judge is evaluated. As many as seven
states (Assam, Manipur, West Bengal, Karnataka, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra and Gujarat)
have incorporated this as a criterion of promotion to the cadre of senior civil judge. Most of
159
813
113525/2018/NM
the states have also identified the quantitative weightage of this criterion;
Evaluation of judgments and marks allotted- SCJ marks allotted
80
70
70
60
50 50 50
50
40
40
30
30
20
10
0
Assam Manipur Karnataka Chhattisgarh Maharashtra Gujarat
Figure 46 Quantitative Weightage of Evaluation of Judgements for Promotion as Senior

Civil Judge
ii. Annual Confidential Reports
As annual indicators of the performance levels of judicial officers, it would be logical to

expect that ACR records should be considered at the time of promotion. The Annual
Confidential Reports of past five years is usually evaluated when the judicial officer is
considered for promotion. Nine states (Assam, Manipur, West Bengal, Karnataka, Tamil
Nadu, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat) have incorporated this as a
criterion of promotion to the cadre of senior civil judge. Some states have also identified the
quantitative weightage of this criterion;
160
814
113525/2018/NM
Evaluation of ACR and marks allotted- SCJ marks allotted

60
50
50
40
30
20
20
15
10
10
0
Assam Karnataka Chhattisgarh Maharashtra
Figure 47 Quantitative Weightage of ACRs for Promotion as Senior Civil Judge
iii. Disposal Record
At the time of being considered for promotion, usually the disposal record of past five years
of the judicial officer is assessed. Five states (Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh,
Maharashtra and Gujarat) have incorporated this as a criterion of promotion to the cadre of
senior civil judge. Few states have also identified the quantitative weightage in relation this
criterion;
161
815
113525/2018/NM
Evaluation of disposal record and marks allotted- SCJ marks allotted

30
25
25
20
15
10 10
10
0
Karnataka Maharashtra Gujarat
Figure 48 Quantitative Weightage of Disposal Records for Promotion as Senior Civil

Judge
iv. Character/Integrity/Vigilance Report
This criterion is usually assessed from two perspectives. Firstly, it is assessed in a positive
sense wherein a positive finding in favour of the judicial officer may result in positive
weightage being awarded to him. Otherwise, it is also assessed in a negative sense wherein
any adverse entry regarding character and integrity may result in the deduction of weightage.
Four states (Assam, Manipur, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh) have incorporated this as
a criterion. In some states, this criterion is expressed in the form of requirement of a vigilance
report (Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Chhattisgarh).
v. Pending Departmental Enquiry/Proceeding
This criterion usually operates as a temporary disqualification. The judicial officer is not
considered for promotion if there is a departmental proceeding or enquiry pending against the
judicial officer and s/he is to be promoted only after the conclusion of the proceeding or
enquiry in her/his favour. Three states (Assam, Manipur and Madhya Pradesh) have
incorporated this criterion for promotion to the cadre of senior civil judges.
162
816
113525/2018/NM
Best Practice
In terms of details on the quantitative weightage of each criterion, the best practice can be
seen in Karnataka, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra and Gujarat. In all these states, each criterion
has been specified a quantitative weightage.
In terms of the balance between different criterion and the quantitative weightage attached to
each criterion, the best practice can be seen in Gujarat. Though Gujarat has only three criteria
with quantitative weightage, the distribution of weightage provides a better balance between
quantity of performance, quality of performance and also overall annual performance records.
It does not give disproportionate emphasis to either quantity or quality of judicial
pronouncements.
The list of criteria in different states along with the details of quantitative weightage is as
follows;
Assam
Table 60-Criteria For Promotion As Senior Civil Judge In Assam
Criteria Quantitative Weightage
Evaluation of Judgments 50 marks
Evaluation of ACRs 50 marks
Suitability and overall performance of Not Specified
the officers
Any Departmental Proceeding/Enquiry if Not Specified
pending against the judicial officer
Adverse entry regarding the character Not Specified
and integrity.
Manipur
Table 61-Criteria For Promotion As Senior Civil Judge In Manipur
Judgments 30 marks
163
817
113525/2018/NM
ACRs Not Specified

Suitability & Overall Performance Not Specified
Departmental Proceeding/Enquiry, if any Not Specified
pending
Benchmark obtained subsequent to Not Specified
adverse entry
Integrity beyond doubt Not Specified
Character beyond doubt Not Specified
Odisha
No express criteria are mentioned in any of the official policies shared with us.
West Bengal
Table 62-Criteria For Promotion As Senior Civil Judge In West Bengal
Evaluation of judgments Not Specified
Evaluation of ACRs of past five years Not Specified
Karnataka
Table 63-Criteria For Promotion As Senior Civil Judge In Karnataka
Evaluation of judgments 70 marks
Evaluation of Annual Confidential Reports 15 marks
of past five years
Disposal of cases of past five years 10 marks
Non-availment of causal leave for past five 05 marks
years
164
818
113525/2018/NM
Tamil Nadu
Table 64-Criteria For Promotion As Senior Civil Judge In Tamil Nadu
Evaluation of ACRs inclusive of Vigilance Not Specified
Reports if any
Work done statement for preceding five Not Specified
years
Chhattisgarh
Table 65-Criteria For Promotion As Senior Civil Judge In Chhattisgarh
Evaluation of Annual Confidential Reports 10 marks
for last five years
Vigilance Report 10 marks
Viva voce 40 marks
Madhya Pradesh
Table 66-Criteria For Promotion As Senior Civil Judge In Madhya Pradesh
Evaluation of ACR Not Specified
Adverse remarks regarding behaviour, Not Specified
conduct and integrity otherwise
Work done in terms of average units per Not Specified
day of the past five years
Pendency of departmental enquiry Not Specified
Judicial officer should not be punished Not Specified
under Rule 10 of Madhya Pradesh Civil
Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1966
165
819
113525/2018/NM
Maharashtra
In Maharashtra, there are two modes of promoting judicial officers to the cadre of senior civil
judges- based on the principle of merit cum seniority and also based on the principle of merit.
The following is the criteria of regular promotion:
Table 67-Criteria For Promotion As Senior Civil Judge In Maharashtra-1
Evaluation of the judgments pronounced 50 marks
by the judicial officer
Evaluation of Annual Confidential 20 marks
Reports
Evaluation of Vigilance Reports 10 marks
Evaluation of Disposal remarks 10 marks
Evaluation of Special reports of the Heads 10 marks
of the Departments under whom the
judicial officer has worked during three
years preceding the year of selection
The following is the criteria of accelerated promotion:

Table 68-Criteria For Promotion As Senior Civil Judge In Maharashtra-2
Limited Departmental Competitive 200 marks
Examination
Reports
Vigilance Reports 10 marks
Disposal Remarks 10 marks
Special Reports of the Heads of the 10 marks
Departments under whom the candidate
has worked during three years preceding
166
820
113525/2018/NM
the year of selection

Performance of the judicial officer in 50 marks
viva-voce
Gujarat
Table 69-Criteria For Promotion As Senior Civil Judge In Gujarat
Evaluation of ACRs of past five years 25 marks
Assessment of disposal of last five years of 25 marks
the officer concerned
Evaluation of judgments of the officer 50 marks
concerned for last one year
New Delhi
167
821
113525/2018/NM
Uttar Pradesh
Table 70-Criteria For Promotion As Senior Civil Judge In Uttar Pradesh
Service record No particulars
Ability No particulars
Character No particulars
Seniority No particulars
D. Assessment Technique of Criteria for Promotion as Senior Civil Judge

Without an objective assessment technique, evaluation of any criteria is likely to be governed
by subjective and personalised considerations. Lack of guidelines in this respect also
facilitates the possibility of arbitrary exercise of authority and illegitimate discrimination. For
example, when evaluation of the judgements is a criterion, the manner in which judgements
will be evaluated should also be prescribed. It should not be possible to focus primarily on
the linguistic clarity while evaluating the judgement of X and reasoning while evaluating the
judgment of Y. The parameters through which the judgements would be evaluated should be
clearly established and pre-determined.
i. Assessment of Judgements
Manipur, Karnataka and Gujarat have prescribed assessment techniques for evaluating the
judgment of the judicial officers who are considered for promotion. However, the parameters
are not entirely same in these states.
ii. Assessment of ACR records

Assessment technique for evaluating ACR records have been prescribed in Assam, Manipur,
Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat. The assessment techniques in this respect can be of two types;
a. Benchmark System
This system is followed in Assam and Gujarat. Grades obtained in ACR are assigned a
numerical value and the average of the ACRs of past years is taken into consideration to
determine if the judicial officer has secured the benchmark fixed in this respect. For example,
in Assam, the ACRs of past five years are evaluated. If the judicial officer has secured
168
822
113525/2018/NM
‘Outstanding’, ‘Very Good’, ‘Good’, ‘Average’, and ‘Poor’, the corresponding numerical
values of each grade is 10, 8, 6, 5 and 3. Taken together the average rating of an officer in the
past 5 years must be 25 or above.
b. System of Minimum Grades

This system is followed in Manipur and Madhya Pradesh. The judicial officer has to secure
the minimum grades as prescribed. For example, in Manipur, the judicial officer should have
secured a minimum of two ‘Good’ grades in the ACRs of past five years.
iii. Assessment of Disposal Records

Some states assign grades in the disposal record of the judicial officer. A numerical value is
assigned to such grades when the same is evaluated as a criterion of promotion to the cadre of
senior civil judge. Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat assign numerical value to the grades secured
by the judicial officer in her/his disposal records. The other way of assessing this criterion is
to assign marks for the disposal percentage as is followed in the state of Karnataka.
Best Practice
In terms of the assessment of judgements, the best practice can be seen in Karnataka and
Manipur which not only mention the parameters of evaluation but also specify the number of
judgements which would be evaluated.
In relation to evaluation of ACRs, the best practice can be seen in Assam and Gujarat. In both
these states, a numerical value is attached to the ratings awarded to a judicial officer in his
ACR of last 5 years and the same is calculated to determine the quantitative weightage the
judicial officer would be entitled to.
In relation to the evaluation of disposal records, the best practice can be seen in Karnataka
and Gujarat. In Gujarat, a corresponding numerical weightage is awarded for the ratings
received by the judicial officers under the Norms Disposal in the last 5 years. In Karnataka,
as there is no rating system but a benchmark is prescribed, marks have been awarded in terms
169
823
113525/2018/NM
of achieving the prescribed benchmark or exceeding the prescribed benchmark by certain

percentages.
For most of the other criteria, no assessment technique has been prescribed in any of the
states.
The assessment technique of the different criterion in different states is provided below;
Assam
Table 71-Assessment Technique For Criteria Of Promotion As Senior Civil Judge In
Assam
Criteria Quantitative Weightage Assessment Technique
Evaluation of Judgments 50 marks Not Specified
Evaluation of ACRs 50 marks Specified
Suitability and overall Not Specified Not Specified
performance of the officers
Any Departmental Not Specified Not Specified
Proceeding/Enquiry if pending
against the judicial officer
Adverse entry regarding the Not Specified Not Specified
character and integrity.
Evaluation of Judgements
Though the parameters for awarding marks (legal reasoning, language etc) have not been
specified, 5 judgements of the officer are evaluated for 10 marks each. The judgments are
examined by each member of the selection board rather than a single member and the average
of the assessment is considered.
Evaluation of ACRs
The ACRs of last 5 years are be evaluated for 50 marks (10 marks for each year’s ACR) and
the assessment of ACRs is as follows-
170
824
113525/2018/NM
Table 72-Assessment Of ACR In Assam For Promotion As Senior Civil Judge

Grade in ACR Marks allotted
Outstanding 10 marks
Very good 8 marks
Good 6 marks
Average 5 marks
Poor* 3 marks
*it may be noted that there is no official rating of ‘Poor’ in the ACR proforma of Assam.
There is also no official policy in this respect. A rating of ‘Poor’ seems to be awarded as a
matter of convention when the reporting officer feels that even an Average rating cannot be
awarded to the judicial officer.
The judicial officer must secure an average of 25 for his ACRs grading of last 5 years.
The assessment technique for other criteria is not expressly provided in any of the official
Manipur
Manipur

Judgments 30 marks Specified
ACRs Not Specified Specified
Suitability & Overall Not Specified Not Specified
Performance
Departmental Not Specified Not Specified
Proceeding/Enquiry, if any
pending
Benchmark obtained Not Specified Not Specified
subsequent to adverse entry
Integrity beyond doubt Not Specified Not Specified
Character beyond doubt Not Specified Not Specified
171
825
113525/2018/NM
Evaluation of judgments:
10 judgements of the judicial officer are evaluated on the following parameters;
Table 74-Assessment of Judgements For Promotion As Senior Civil Judge In Manipur

Parameters Marks allotted
Regularity/promptness in delivering 5 marks
judgments
Brevity 5 marks
Reasoning- factual aspect 10 marks
Reasoning- Legal aspect 10 marks
Evaluation of ACRs
In the assessment of ACRs of past five years, the judicial officer must have secured a
minimum of two grading of ‘Good’.
Odisha
In the absence of any specified criteria in the official policies shared with us, there is also no
express provision regarding any kind of assessment technique.
West Bengal
The assessment technique for any criteria is not expressly provided in any of the official
172
826
113525/2018/NM
Karnataka
Karnataka
Evaluation of judgments 70 marks Specified
Evaluation of Annual 15 marks Not Specified
Confidential Reports for past
five years
Disposal of cases for past five 10 marks Specified
years
Non-availment of causal leave 05 marks Not Specified
for past five years
Evaluation of Judgments
5 judgments (three civil and two criminal) are evaluated on the following parameters;
Table 76-Evaluation Of Judgements For Senior Civil Judge In Karnataka
Knowledge of law 4 marks
Narration of facts and appreciation of 4 marks
evidence
Conclusion and reasoning 3 marks
Language 3 marks
Evaluation of Disposal Records
In Karnataka, every judicial officer is prescribed a quantitative benchmark for disposal of

cases. Disposal records of last 5 years are evaluated as per the following formula;
173
827
113525/2018/NM
Table 77-Assessment Of Disposal Records For Promotion As Senior Civil Judge In

Karnataka
Disposal % Marks allotted
100% disposal 7 marks
100% to 200% disposal 7+2 marks
200% and above disposal 9+1 marks
Tamil Nadu
Chhattisgarh
Madhya Pradesh
Madhya Pradesh
Evaluation of ACRs Not Specified Specified
Adverse remarks regarding Not Specified Not Specified
behaviour, conduct and
integrity
Work done in terms of Not Specified Specified
average units per day of the
174
828
113525/2018/NM
past five years

Pendency of departmental Not Specified Not Specified
enquiry
Judicial officer should not be Not Specified Not Specified
punished under Rule 10 of
Madhya Pradesh Civil
Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules,
1966
Evaluation of ACRs
In the last 5 years, the judicial officer must have secured at least one rating of ‘Very Good’
and two ratings of ‘Good’ and should not have secured a rating of ‘Poor’
Evaluation of ‘Average units per day’
On a yearly basis, the average units per day of the judicial officer in the last 5 years must fall
in the rating of ‘Good’ as per the Norms of Disposal prescribed in the State.
Maharashtra
Regular Promotion
Accelerated Promotion
175
829
113525/2018/NM
Gujarat
Gujarat
Evaluation of ACRs of past 25 marks Specified
five years
Assessment of disposal of 25 marks Specified
last five years of the officer
concerned
Evaluation of judgments of 50 marks Specified
the officer concerned for last
one year
176
830
113525/2018/NM
Evaluation of ACRs for last five years of the officer concerned:

Table 80-Assessment Of ACR For Promotion As Senior Civil Judge in Gujarat
Grade Marks allotted
Outstanding 5 marks
Good 4 marks
Reasonably Good 3 marks
Average 2 marks
Below Average/Poor 0 mark
It needs to be noted that ratings of ‘Reasonably Good’,’ Average’ and ‘Below Average’ are
not nomenclature used in the ACR proforma of Gujarat. These terms have been used in the
case of Vinay Kumar v High Court of Gujarat as confirmation of the prevailing assessment
technique
Assessment of Disposal Records
Marks are given for the grades obtained by a judicial officer for the past 5 years in relation to
his disposal records;
Table 81-Assessment Of Disposal Records For Promotion As Senior Civil Judge In
Gujarat
Excellent or Outstanding 5 marks
Very Good 4 marks
Good 3 marks
Adequate 2 marks
Just Adequate 1 mark
Inadequate/Poor 0 mark
177
831
113525/2018/NM
While the number of judgements which will be evaluated has not been specified, judgements
of a judicial officer are evaluated on the following parameters;
Table 82-Evaluation Of Judgements For Senior Civil Judge In Gujarat
Narration of facts 10 marks
Discussion, appreciation of evidence and 10 marks
power of assimilation
Understanding of Law and Application of 10 marks

law
Right and just conclusion 10 marks

Overall quality of Judgment 10 marks
A candidate has to secure a minimum of 40% marks in each component and aggregate of
50% in the grand total of three components in order to be promoted.
New Delhi
Uttar Pradesh
178
832
113525/2018/NM
E. Criteria for Regular Promotion as District Judge
The most common criteria for regular promotion to the cadre of district judges are:
1. Suitability test
2. ACRs
3. Judgments
4. Disposal Records
5. Character/Integrity
6. Pending Departmental Proceedings/Enquiry
7. Vigilance report
Other criteria may include non-availment of leave (Karnataka), special reports of the Heads
of the Department (Maharashtra), benchmark obtained subsequent to adverse entry
(Manipur), suitability and overall performance (Assam, Manipur, Tamil Nadu).
i. Suitability Test
To assess the merit of judicial officers eligible for promotion, suitability test is conducted.
Usually, suitability test is a written examination and is sometimes followed by a viva voce.
Seven states (Odisha, West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat,
and Uttar Pradesh) have incorporated this as a criterion of promotion. Viva voce is conducted
in three states- West Bengal, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra. While the suitability test is
conducted for 100 marks in Uttar Pradesh, the weightage is of 150 marks in Madhya Pradesh.
The weightage of this criterion in other states is not expressly provided in any of the official
ii. ACR
Ten states have evaluation of ACRs as a criterion of promotion. Usually, ACRs of past five
years is evaluated but in Uttar Pradesh, ACRs of past ten years is evaluated when the senior
civil judge is considered for regular promotion to the cadre of district judge. In many states,
the quantitative weightage of this criterion has been clearly specified;
179
833
113525/2018/NM
Evaluation of ACR and marks allotted- DJ regular

marks allotted
promotion
120
100
100
80
60 50
40
20 20
20 15
10
0
Assam Karnataka Chhattisgarh Maharashtra Gujarat Uttar Pradesh
Figure 49 Quantitative Weightage of ACRs for Regular Promotion as District Judge
iii. Evaluation of judgments
Nine states (Assam, Manipur, West Bengal, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Chhattisgarh, Madhya
Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat) have this as a criterion of regular promotion to the cadre
of district judges. In many states, the quantitative weightage of this criterion has been clearly
specified;
180
834
113525/2018/NM
Evaluation of judgments and marks allotted- DJ regular

marks allotted
promotion
80
70
70
60
50 50
50
40
40
30
30
20
20
10
0
Assam Manipur Karnataka Chhattisgarh Maharashtra Gujarat
Figure 50 Quantitative Weightage of Evaluation of Judgements for Regular Promotion

as District Judge
iv. Disposal Record
Five states (Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat) have
disposal of cases as a criterion of regular promotion to the cadre of district judges. In
Karnataka and Maharashtra, this criterion is evaluated for ten marks. In Gujarat, it is
evaluated for 20 marks. The details of the quantitative weightage in Tamil Nadu and Madhya
Pradesh have not been specified in any of the official policies shared with us.
v. Character/Integrity/Vigilance Report
This has been expressly prescribed as a criterion in Assam, Manipur, Chhattisgarh,

Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh.
vi. Pending Departmental Proceeding/Enquiry
Four states (Assam, Manipur, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh) have expressly incorporated this
as a criterion of regular promotion to the cadre of district judges.
181
835
113525/2018/NM
Best Practice
seen in Karnataka, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra and Gujarat. In Karnataka, each criterion has
been specified a quantitative weightage. In Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra and Gujarat,
quantitative weightage of each criterion has been specified apart from the criterion of
suitability test.
In terms of the balance between different criterion and the quantitative weightage attached to
each criterion, the best practice can be seen in Gujarat. The distribution of weightage in
Gujarat provides a better balance between quantity of performance, quality of performance
and also overall annual performance records.
The various criterion for regular promotion as District Judge in different states along with the
quantitative weightage of each criterion is as follows;
Assam
Table 83-Criteria For Regular Promotion As District Judge In Assam

the officers
Any Departmental Proceeding/Enquiry Not Specified
if pending against the judicial officer
and integrity.
182
836
113525/2018/NM
Manipur
Table 84-Criteria For Regular Promotion As District Judge In Manipur

Judgments 30 marks
ACRs Not Specified
pending
adverse entry
Odisha
Table 85-Criteria For Regular Promotion As District Judge In Odisha

Suitability test Not Specified
West Bengal
Table 86-Criteria For Regular Promotion As District Judge In West Bengal

Evaluation of ACRs of past five years Not Specified
Viva Voce Not Specified
Karnataka
Table 87-Criteria For Regular Promotion As District Judge In Karnataka

183
837
113525/2018/NM
Evaluation of ACR reports of past five 15 marks

years
Disposal of cases of past five years 10 marks
Non-availment of causal leave of past five 05 marks
years
Tamil Nadu
Table 88-Criteria For Regular Promotion As District Judge In Tamil Nadu

Suitability Not Specified
Evaluation of judgments rendered in the Not Specified
past five years
Evaluation of Annual Confidential Not Specified
Reports inclusive of Vigilance Reports of
the past five years
Work done in the past five years Not Specified
Pendency of disciplinary proceedings if Not Specified
any
Chhattisgarh
Table 89-Criteria For Regular Promotion As District Judge In Chhattisgarh
Evaluation of their judgments 40 marks
Evaluation of ACR reports of past five 10 marks
years
Vigilance Report 10 marks
Viva Voce 40 marks
184
838
113525/2018/NM
Madhya Pradesh
Table 90-Criteria For Regular Promotion As District Judge In Madhya Pradesh

Suitability test 150 Marks
Evaluation of ACRs Not Specified
Average units earned per day Not Specified
Pendency of any departmental enquiry Not Specified
Judicial officer should not be punished Not Specified
under Rule 10 of Madhya Pradesh Civil
Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1966
Maharashtra
Table 91-Criteria For Regular Promotion As District Judge In Maharashtra

Evaluation of the judgments of the Senior 50 marks
Civil Judges
Reports
Disposal remarks 10 marks
Special reports of the heads of the 10 marks
Departments under whom the judicial
officer has worked during three
preceding years preceding the year of
selection
Viva-voce 50 marks
185
839
113525/2018/NM
Gujarat
Table 92-Criteria For Regular Promotion As District Judge In Gujarat
Examination and Evaluation of ACRs for 20 marks
last five
years
New Delhi
Uttar Pradesh
Table 93-Criteria For Regular Promotion As District Judge In Uttar Pradesh

Suitability test 100 marks
Service record of past 10 years 100 marks
(evaluation of ACR)
Ability Not Specified
Character Not Specified
Seniority Not Specified
186
840
113525/2018/NM
F. Assessment Technique of Criteria for Regular Promotion as District Judge
i. Suitability Test
Suitability test is usually a written examination. The number of papers, marks and the type of
questions (objective or subjective and sometimes both), syllabus varies in different states.
Best Practice
As in the case of promotion as Senior Civil Judges, in terms of the assessment of judgements,
the best practice can be seen in Karnataka and Manipur which not only mention the
parameters of evaluation but also specify the number of judgements which would be
evaluated.
In terms of the evaluation of ACRs, the best practice can be seen in Assam, Madhya Pradesh
and Gujarat. In all these states, a numerical value is attached to the ratings awarded to a
judicial officer in his ACR of last 5 years and the same is calculated to determine the
quantitative weightage the judicial officer would be entitled to.
As in the case of promotion as Senior Civil Judges in relation to the evaluation of disposal
records, the best practice can be seen in Karnataka and Gujarat. In Gujarat, a corresponding
numerical weightage is awarded for the ratings received by the judicial officers under the
Norms Disposal in the last 5 years. In Karnataka, as there is no rating system but a
benchmark is prescribed, marks have been awarded in terms of achieving the prescribed
benchmark or exceeding the prescribed benchmark by certain percentages.
states.
Below is the assessment technique of criteria of regular promotion to the cadre of district
judges in different states:
187
841
113525/2018/NM
Assam
Table 94-Assessment Technique Of Criteria For Regular Promotion As District Judge
In Assam

Proceeding/Enquiry if
pending against the judicial
officer
The assessment technique for evaluation of ACRs is similar to the technique prescribed for
evaluation of ACRs for promotion as Senior Civil Judges. The provisions regarding
evaluation of judgements are also the same.
Manipur
In Manipur
ACRs Not Specified Specified
Performance
188
842
113525/2018/NM
pending
Integrity beyond doubt Not Specified Not Specified
Character beyond doubt Not Specified Not Specified
The assessment technique for evaluation of judgements is similar to the one prescribed in
case of promotion of Civil Judges Senior Division.
Evaluation of ACRs
In the assessment of ACRs of past five years, the judicial officer must have secured a
minimum of three ratings as ‘Good’.
Odisha
In Odisha

Suitability test Not Specified Not Specified
West Bengal
In West Bengal
Evaluation of judgments Not Specified Not Specified
Evaluation of ACRs of past Not Specified Not Specified
189
843
113525/2018/NM
five years
Viva Voce Not Specified Not Specified
Karnataka
In Karnataka
Confidential Reports of past
five years
Disposal of cases of past five 10 marks Specified
years
Non-availment of causal leave 05 marks Not Specified
of past five years
The details of the assessment technique are similar to those prescribed for promotion as
Senior Civil Judges.
Tamil Nadu
In Tamil Nadu

Suitability Not Specified Not Specified
rendered in the past five
years
Evaluation of Annual Not Specified Not Specified
Confidential Reports
inclusive of Vigilance
190
844
113525/2018/NM
Reports of the past five years

Work done in the past five Not Specified Not Specified
years
Pendency of disciplinary Not Specified Not Specified
proceedings, if any
Chhattisgarh
In Chhattisgarh

Evaluation of their 40 marks Not Specified
judgments
Evaluation of ACR reports 10 marks Not Specified
of past five years
Vigilance Report 10 marks Not Specified
Viva Voce 40 marks Not Specified
Madhya Pradesh
In Madhya Pradesh
Suitability test 150 Marks Specified
Evaluation of ACRs Not Specified Specified
191
845
113525/2018/NM
Average units earned per day Not Specified Specified

Pendency of any Not Specified Not Specified
departmental enquiry
Judicial officer should not be Not Specified Not Specified
punished under Rule 10 of
Madhya Pradesh Civil
Services (Classification,
Control and Appeal) Rules,
1966
Suitability Test
Suitability test is a written examination for 150 marks (100 objective questions and 50
subjective questions).
Evaluation of ACRs
The judicial officer must have secured at least one rating of ‘Very Good’ and two ratings of
‘Good’ and should not have secured a rating of Poor.
Evaluation of ‘Average units per day’
On a yearly basis, the average units per day of the judicial officer in the last 5 years must fall
in the rating of ‘Good’ as per the Norms of Disposal prescribed in the State.
Maharashtra
In Maharashtra

Evaluation of the judgments 50 marks Not Specified
of the Senior Civil Judges
Evaluation of Annual 20 marks Specified
192
846
113525/2018/NM
Vigilance Reports 10 marks Specified

Disposal remarks 10 marks Not Specified
Special reports of the heads 10 marks Not Specified
of the Departments under
whom the judicial officer
has worked during three
preceding years preceding
Viva-voce 50 marks Not Specified
Gujarat
In Gujarat

Examination and Evaluation 20 marks Specified
of ACRs for the last five
Years
Assessment of disposal for 20 marks Specified
last five years of the officer
concerned
the officer concerned for the
last one year
Evaluation of ACRs for the last five years of the officer concerned for 20 marks is assessed
as per the following parameters;
193
847
113525/2018/NM
Table 104-Assessment Of ACR for Regular Promotion As District Judge In Gujarat

Outstanding 4 marks
Good 3 marks
Reasonably Good 2 marks
Average 1 marks
Below Average/Poor 0 mark
It needs to be noted that ratings of ‘Reasonably Good’,’ Average’ and ‘Below Average’ are
not nomenclature used in the ACR proforma of Gujarat. These terms have been used in the
case of Vinay Kumar v High Court of Gujarat as confirmation of the prevailing assessment
technique
Marks are given for the grades obtained by a judicial officer for the past 5 years in relation to
his disposal records;
Table 105-Assessment of Disposal Records in Gujarat
Excellent or Outstanding 4 marks
Very Good/Good 3 marks
Adequate 2 marks
Just Adequate 1 marks
Poor 0 mark
Though there is no specification as to the number of judgement which would be evaluated,

judgements of a judicial officer are evaluated on the following parameters;
194
848
113525/2018/NM
Table 106-Assessment of Judgements in Gujarat

Right and just conclusion 12 marks
Understanding of Law and application of 12 marks
law
Discussion, appreciation of evidence and 12 marks
power of assimilation
Common sense and clarity of thoughts 12 marks
Proficiency in language, presentation and 12 marks
originality
New Delhi
In the absence of any specified criteria in the official policies shared with us, there is also no
express provision regarding any kind of assessment technique.
Uttar Pradesh
Table 107-Assessment Technique of Criteria For Regular Promotion As District Judge
in Uttar Pradesh
Suitability test 100 marks Specified
Service record of past 10 100 marks Specified
years (evaluation of ACR)
Ability Not Specified Not Specified
Character Not Specified Not Specified
Seniority Not Specified Not Specified
Suitability Test
The suitability test is a written examination of 100 marks and the detailed syllabus is
provided in Appendix G (1) of the Rules.
195
849
113525/2018/NM
Evaluation of ACRs
The service record of the judicial officer is assessed by evaluating her/his ACRs in the
following manner:
Table 108-Assessment Of ACR for Regular Promotion As District Judge In Uttar
Pradesh
Grade in ACR Marks allotted
Outstanding 10 marks
Very Good 8 marks
Good 6 marks
Average 4 marks
Poor 0 mark
Adverse Entry -2 marks for each year
G. Criteria for Accelerated Promotion as District Judge
The most common criteria of accelerated promotion to the cadre of district judges are:
1. Limited departmental competitive examination
2. Viva voce
3. Evaluation of judgments
4. Evaluation of ACRs
5. Character and integrity
6. Disposal of cases
Other criteria include pendency of departmental proceeding/enquiry (Assam and Manipur),
suitability and overall performance (Assam and Manipur), non-availment of leave (Karnataka
and Tamil Nadu), special reports of the Heads of the Department (Maharashtra), vigilance
reports (Maharashtra), past performance (Madhya Pradesh), performance appraisal
(Chhattisgarh), assessment of records (New Delhi).
196
850
113525/2018/NM
i. Limited Departmental Competitive Examination
All the states have limited departmental competitive examination as a criterion for
accelerated promotion to the cadre of district judges. Since this mode of promotion solely
relies on the principle of merit, an objective assessment of this principle becomes inevitable.
However, the marks allotted for this criterion differs in each state;
Limited departmental competitive examination and marks

allotted- DJ accelerated promotion Marks allotted
700
600 600
600
500
400
300 300 300
300
200 200
200 150
100
100 45
0
Figure 51 Quantitative Weightage of Limited Competitive Examination for Accelerated

Promotion as District Judge
ii. Viva Voce
The limited departmental competitive examination is usually followed by the viva voce.
Majority of the states (Assam, Manipur, Odisha, West Bengal, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu,
Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, New Delhi and Uttar Pradesh) have incorporated this as a
criterion for accelerated promotion to the cadre of district judges. The weightage of this
criterion varies in different states;
197
851
113525/2018/NM
Viva voce and marks allotted- DJ accelerated promotion

marks allotted
300
250
250
200
150
100
100 75
50 50 50
50
20 20
10
0
Figure 52 Quantitative Weightage of Viva Voce for Accelerated Promotion as District

Judge
The weightage of viva in West Bengal has not been specified in any of the official policies
shared with us.
iii. Evaluation of judgments
Seven states (Assam, Manipur, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh Maharashtra and
Gujarat) have incorporated this as a criterion for accelerated promotion to the cadre of district
judges. Usually, the judgments rendered in the past five years are evaluated except in Tamil
Nadu, where the judgments rendered by the judicial officer considered for promotion for the
past three years are evaluated. This criterion is included under the heading of ‘Past
Performance’ in Madhya Pradesh. Different marks are allotted to this criterion in different
states.
198
852
113525/2018/NM
Evaluation of judgments and marks allotted- DJ marks allotted

accelerated promotion
80
70
70
60
50 50
50
40
30 30
30
20
20
10
10
0
Assam Manipur Karnataka Tamil NaduMadhya Pradesh
Maharashtra Gujarat
Figure 53 Quantitative Weightage of Evaluation of Judgements for Accelerated

Promotion as District Judge
iv. Evaluation of ACR
Eight states (Assam, Manipur, Odisha, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh,
Maharashtra, and Gujarat) have incorporated this as a criterion for accelerated promotion to
the cadre of district judges. Though, ‘Performance Appraisal’ is mentioned as criterion, there
are no details on whether ACRs are evaluated under this criterion. The quantitative weightage
of this criterion varies in different states;
Evaluation of ACR and marks allotted- DJ accelerated
marks allotted
promotion
60
50
50
40
30
30
20 20 20
20 15
10
10
0
Assam Odisha Karnataka Tamil NaduMadhya PradeshMaharashtra Gujarat
Figure 54 Quantitative Weightage of ACRs for Accelerated Promotion as District Judge
199
853
113525/2018/NM
Best Practice
seen in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, New Delhi and Gujarat.
In all these states, a quantitative weightage has been specified for each criterion.
Unlike other modes of promotion, in accelerated promotion, objective evaluation of merit is

most important as seniority is not taken into consideration. Thus it is expected that more
weightage should be given to the limited competitive examination which is conducted in this
respect. At the same time, there is need to provide adequate weightage to other criteria as
well. In terms of distribution of weightage, the best practice can be seen in Maharashtra and
Karnataka.
The list of criteria in different states along with the details of quantitative weightage is as
follows;
Assam
Table 109-Criteria for Accelerated Promotion As District Judge in Assam
Criteria Marks allotted
Limited competitive examination 300 marks
Viva Voce 50 marks
the officers
Any Departmental Proceeding/Enquiry Not Specified
if pending against the judicial officer
and integrity.
200
854
113525/2018/NM
Manipur
Table 110-Criteria for Accelerated Promotion As District Judge in Manipur
Limited Competitive Examination 300
Viva Voce 50
Judgments 30 marks
ACRs Not Specified
pending
adverse entry
Odisha
Table 111-Criteria for Accelerated Promotion As District Judge in Odisha
Interview 20 marks
Evaluation of CCRs/P.A.Rs 30 marks
West Bengal
Table 112-Criteria for Accelerated Promotion As District Judge in West Bengal
Limited competitive examination Not Specified
Viva Voce Not Specified
201
855
113525/2018/NM
Karnataka
Table 113-Criteria for Accelerated Promotion As District Judge in Karnataka

Viva Voce 100 marks
Evaluation of ACR reports for past five 15 marks
years
Disposal of cases for past five years 10 marks
Non-availment of causal leave for past 05 marks
five years
Tamil Nadu
Table 114-Criteria for Accelerated Promotion As District Judge in Tamil Nadu

Evaluation of judgments rendered in the 30 marks
past 3 years
Evaluation of ACRs for past five years 10 marks
Quantum of leave availed in the past 5 5 marks
years
Viva-voce 10 marks
202
856
113525/2018/NM
Chhattisgarh
Table 115-Criteria for Accelerated Promotion As District Judge in Chhattisgarh
Departmental limited competitive 200 marks
examination
Performance appraisal 30 marks
Viva Voce 20 marks
Madhya Pradesh
Table 116-Criteria for Accelerated Promotion As District Judge in Madhya Pradesh

Past performance 50 marks
Reputation Not Specified
Maharashtra
Table 117-Criteria for Accelerated Promotion As District Judge in Maharashtra
limited Departmental Competitive 200 marks
Examination
Reports
Disposal Remarks 10 marks
Special Reports of the Heads of the 10 marks
Departments under whom the candidate
has worked during three years preceding
Performance of the judicial officer in 50 marks
203
857
113525/2018/NM
viva-voce
Gujarat
Table 118-Criteria for Accelerated Promotion As District Judge in Gujarat
Limited departmental competitive Not Specified
examination
Examination and Evaluation of ACRs for 20 marks
last five
years
New Delhi
Table 119-Criteria for Accelerated Promotion As District Judge in New Delhi

Assessment of records 150 marks
Viva Voce 250 marks
Uttar Pradesh
Table 120-Criteria for Accelerated Promotion As District Judge in Uttar Pradesh
Interview 75 Marks
Character Not Specified
Fitness Not Specified
204
858
113525/2018/NM
H. Assessment Technique of Criteria for Accelerated Promotion as District Judge
i. Limited departmental competitive examination
Limited competitive examinations are only open to eligible judicial officers in the cadre of
Senior Civil Judge. The number of papers, marks and the syllabus of this examination vary
from state to state;
Limited departmental competitive examination and marks marks

allotted- Assessment technique
700
600
600
500
400
300 300 300
300
200 200
200 150
100
0
Assam (3 Manipur (3 Odisha (2 Karnataka (2 Chhattisgarh Madhya Uttar
papers) papers) papers) papers) (2 papers) Pradesh (2 Pradesh (3
papers) papers)
Figure 55 Details of Limited Competitive Examination
While the limited competitive examination in New Delhi is for 250 marks, the details of the
examination have not been specified in any of the official policies shared with us.
ii. Viva voce
Assessment technique of this criterion has been specified in Assam. In Assam, viva voce is
be conducted to assess the suitability of the candidate for the cadre by judging the mental
alertness, knowledge of law, clear and logical exposition, balance of judgment, skills,
attitude, ethics, power of assimilation, power of communication, character and intellectual
depth and the like of the candidate. The assessment technique of this criterions has not been
expressly provided in any of the official polices of the other states shared with us.
205
859
113525/2018/NM
Best Practice
As in the case of the assessment technique adopted for evaluating judgements for promotion
as a Senior Civil Judges and for regulation promotion as District Judge, the best practice can
be seen in this respect in Karnataka and Manipur.
The best practice of assessment concerning viva voce can be seen in Assam. The assessment
technique of Viva Voce has not been specified in any of the official policies of the other
states shared with us.
As in the case of the assessment technique adopted for promotion as a Civil Judge, the best
practice for evaluating ACRs can be seen in Assam and Gujarat. In both these states, a
numerical value is attached to the ratings awarded to a judicial officer in his ACR for last 5
years and the same is calculated to determine the quantitative weightage the judicial officer
would be entitled to. A similar practice in this respect can also be seen in Madhya Pradesh.
In relation to the evaluation of disposal records, the best practice can be seen in Karnataka
Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh. In Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh, a corresponding numerical
weightage is awarded for the ratings received by the judicial officers under the Norms
Disposal in the last 5 years. In Karnataka, as there is no rating system but a benchmark is
prescribed, marks have been awarded in terms of achieving the prescribed benchmark or
exceeding the prescribed benchmark by certain percentages.
states.
The assessment technique adopted in different states is as follow;
206
860
113525/2018/NM
Assam
Table 121-Assessment Technique of Criteria for Accelerated Promotion As District
Judge in Assam
Criteria Marks allotted Assessment Technique
Limited competitive 300 marks Specified
examination
Viva Voce 50 marks Specified
Proceeding/Enquiry if
pending against the judicial
officer
Limited Competitive Examination
It consists of three papers of 100 marks each. The brief syllabus of this examination is
provided in schedule B of the Rules. The judicial officer has to obtain a minimum of 60% to
be eligible for viva voce.
Viva Voce
The viva voce will be conducted to assess the suitability of the candidate for the cadre by
judging the mental alertness, knowledge of law, clear and logical exposition, balance of
judgment, skills, attitude, ethics, power of assimilation, power of communication, character
and intellectual depth and the like of the candidate.
The assessment technique for evaluation of ACRs is the similar to the technique prescribed
for evaluation of ACRs for promotion as Senior Civil Judges. The provisions regarding
evaluation of judgements are also the same.
207
861
113525/2018/NM
Manipur
Judge in Manipur
Limited Competitive 300 Specified
Examination
Viva Voce 50 Not Specified
ACRs Not Specified Not Specified
Performance
pending
The accelerated promotion is carried out on the basis of merit through a Limited
Departmental Examination to be held by High Court from time to time as prescribed in
Schedule B of the Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005. A detailed syllabus for the Limited
Competitive examination is given in the Schedule B of the Rules.
The assessment technique for evaluation of judgements is similar to the one prescribed in
case of promotion of Civil Judges Senior Division.
208
862
113525/2018/NM
Odisha
Judge in Odisha
examination
Interview 20 marks Not Specified
Evaluation of CCRs/P.A.Rs 30 marks Specified
Limited competitive examination
It is a written examination of two papers for 75 marks each. The brief syllabus of these two
papers is mentioned in Appendix A of the Orissa Superior Judicial Service and Orissa
Judicial Service Rules, 2007.
Evaluation of ACRs
The CCR/PAR is evaluated in the following order as per the grading received;
Table 124-Assessment of ACR for Accelerated Promotion As District Judge in Odisha
CCRs/PARs Grading Marks
Outstanding 6 marks
Very Good 5 marks
Good 4 marks
Average 3 marks
Poor 0 mark
209
863
113525/2018/NM
West Bengal
Judge in West Bengal
Limited competitive Not Specified Not Specified
examination
Viva Voce Not Specified Not Specified
Karnataka
Judge in Karnataka
Limited competitive 300 marks Not Specified
examination
Evaluation of ACR reports of 15 marks Not Specified
past five years
Disposal of cases of past five 10 marks Specified
years
Non-availment of causal 05 marks Not Specified
leave of past five years
The limited competitive examination consists of two papers (one on civil law and one on
criminal law) of 150 marks each however the syllabus of this criterion is not specified in any
of the official policies shared with us.
The assessment technique for remaining criteria is the same as is prescribe for promotion as
Senior Civil Judges.
210
864
113525/2018/NM
Tamil Nadu
Judge in Tamil Nadu
examination
Evaluation of judgments 30 marks Not Specified
rendered in the past 3 years
Evaluation of ACRs of past 10 marks Not Specified
five years
Quantum of leave availed in 5 marks Not Specified
the past 5 years
Viva-voce 10 marks Not Specified
Limited competitive examination:

The limited competitive examination will be an objective type test in Civil, Criminal and
Constitutional law however the syllabus of this criterion is not specified in any of the official
policies shared with us
Chhattisgarh
Judge in Chhattisgarh

Departmental limited 200 marks Specified
competitive examination
Performance appraisal 30 marks Not Specified
211
865
113525/2018/NM
The departmental limited competitive examination consists of two papers of 100 marks each
and the detailed syllabus for the examination is prescribed in Schedule-II.
Madhya Pradesh
Judge in Madhya Pradesh
examination
Past performance 50 marks Specified
Reputation No particulars Specified
Limited competitive examination shall be a written examination of two papers of 100 marks
each. Paper I will be an objective paper and paper II will be a descriptive paper.
Past performance is evaluated in the following manner:

Table 130-Assessment of Past Performance for Accelerated Promotion As District
Judge in Madhya Pradesh
ACRs for past five years 20 marks
Disposal for past five years 20 marks
Quality of Judgment/order 10 Marks
For evaluating ACRs- the following marks are be awarded to the following grades obtained
in the last 5 years:
Table 131-Assessment of ACR for Accelerated Promotion As District Judge in Madhya
Pradesh
Outstanding/Excellent 4 marks
Very Good 3 marks
212
866
113525/2018/NM
Good 2 marks
Average 1 mark
Poor 0 mark
The disposal records are calculated in the form of ‘units per day’ of the judicial officer and
quantitative weightage isawarded in the following manner;
Table 132-Assessment of Disposal Records for Accelerated Promotion As District Judge
in Madhya Pradesh
Per day average in units Marks allotted
9 or above 4 marks
Very good 3 marks
Good 2 marks
Average 1 mark
Below average* 0 mark
*it may be noted that the nomenclature used for the lowest rating in the Norms of Disposal of
Madhya Pradesh is Poor and not ‘Below Average’.
The assessment technique for evaluating judgements has not been specified in any of the
Reputation
It has been provided that vigilance report shall be used for assessing the reputation of the
judicial officer.
Maharashtra
Judge in Maharashtra
limited Departmental 200 marks Not Specified
Competitive Examination
Evaluation of judgments 50 marks Not Specified
213
867
113525/2018/NM

Vigilance Reports 10 marks Not Specified
Disposal Remarks 10 marks Not Specified
Special Reports of the Heads 10 marks Not Specified
of the Departments under
whom the candidate has
worked during three years
preceding the year of
selection
Performance of the judicial 50 marks Not Specified
officer in viva-voce

The assessment technique of any criteria has not been specified in any of the official policies
shared with us.
Gujarat

Judge in Gujarat
Limited departmental No particulars Specified
competitive examination
Examination and Evaluation 20 marks Specified
of ACRs for last five
years
Assessment of disposal of last 20 marks Specified
five years of the officer
concerned
the officer concerned for last
one year
214
868
113525/2018/NM
The particulars of limited departmental competitive examination have not been specified in
any of the official policies shared with us.
The assessment technique for remaining criteria is the same as is prescribe for regular
promotion as District Judge.
New Delhi
Judge in New Delhi
examination
Assessment of records 150 marks Not Specified
The assessment technique of criteria has not been specified in any of the official policies
shared with us.
Uttar Pradesh
Judge in Uttar Pradesh
examination
Character No particulars Not Specified
Fitness No particulars Not Specified
215
869
113525/2018/NM

A limited competitive examination is conducted on the following subjects and a detailed
syllabus for the examination is given in the Appendix H of the Rules:
The assessment technique of other criteria has not been specified in any of the official
216
870
113525/2018/NM
Survey on Performance Appraisal and Promotion Schemes of Judicial Officers
Survey Audience
In order to gain feedback on the implementation of the performance appraisal systems and
schemes of promotion of judicial officers in different states, a questionnaire was designed.
The questionnaire was designated for the serving judicial officers in the identified states so as
to have an insight into the challenges and shortcomings of the existing policies. As the
purpose of the survey was to examine the efficacy of the existing policies, it was felt that the
survey should be confined to judicial officers as they are the ones who have first-hand
knowledge of its implementation.
Preparation of the Questionnaire

The questionnaire consisted of two parts. The first part dealt with questions pertaining to the
performance evaluation mechanism in the identified states and consisted of 9 questions. The
second part pertained to the promotion schemes in the identified states and consisted of 5
questions. The questions were framed keeping in mind existing policies in the different states.
Most of the questions required responses either in the form of yes/no or required responses in
the form of picking a rating in a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 indicating ‘very bad’ and 5 indicating
‘very good’. At the end of the questionnaire, an option was given to the respondents to add
their comments on any matter not covered under the different questions.
The contents and structure of the questionnaire was finalised after a broad consultation
process with various stakeholders. The initial draft of the questionnaire was shared with the
various organisation and academics with experience in the area of judicial reforms. The draft
questionnaire was also shared with the High Court authorities of all the identified states in
order feedback. The final draft of the questionnaire was determined taking into considerations
the various suggestions which were received.
Mode of Administration
The survey was administered by means of a questionnaire on Google Forms that was sent out
to judicial officers directly by mail. The mail ids of judicial officers are not publicly available
and thus we were completely reliant on the respective High Courts for access to the e-mail ids
of judicial officers. Accordingly requests were sent to the High Courts of all the identified
217
871
113525/2018/NM
states to share the e-mail

mail ids of judicial officers. Despite repeated request and reminders, out
of the 12, authorities of only 5 High Courts shared the e-mail
e mail ids of serving judicial officers.
Thus, the survey could be conducted in only
only the following 5 states; Assam, Chhattisgarh,
Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh. The survey was kept open for a period of
over 40 days starting from the 2nd week of July, 2017. In total 25 respondents replied from
these 5 states.
Survey Results
The results of the survey have been presented in the nature of percentage of respondents in
relation to different options of answers for different questions.
Awareness about Existing Performance Evaluation System
100 0 0 0
80 14.3
60 66.7 28.6
100 100
40 100
20 0 Partly
0 33.3 57.1
No
Yes
Figure 56 Survey Results- Awareness about Existing Performance Evaluation System
Awarness about the existins policies would ususally reflect both on the alerntness of the
judicial officers concerned and also on the easy accessiblity of such policies. Surprisingly,
Surprisingly
there were responses which indicated a lack of complete awareness regarding the manner in
which perofmrance of judcial officers is being assessed in the respective states.
218
872
113525/2018/NM
Usefulness of Periodic Performance Evaluation
120
100 0 0
80 66.7 50 33.3 16.67
60 0 28.6
40 5
20 33.3 50 50 66.7 14.3
0 0 0 28.6
16.7
0 4
16.67
0 14.3
14.3
3
2
1
Figure 57 Survey Results- Usefulness of Periodic Performance Evaluation
The purpose of perioic performance appraisal is to enourage improvement amongst the

judicial officers. Thus, if the judicial officers themselves are not convinced about the
usefulnes of the existing performance appraisal schemes, such schemes would never serve
s
their purpose adequately. It may be noted that the majority of the responses regarding the
usefulness of the existing schemes of performance evaluation is rather underwhelming. In 2
out of the 5 states, not a single officer rated the usefulnes of periodic
periodic performance evaluation
beyond 3. The average rating of the usefulness of periodic performance evaluaiton in
different states is as follows;
3.28
3.53.17
3.5
2.5
3 2.67 Assam
2.5 Chhattisgarh
2 Madhya Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh
1.5 Tamil Nadu Tamil Nadu
1 Madhya Pradesh
Uttar Pradesh
0.5 Chhattisgarh
0 Assam
Figure 58 Average Rating- Usefulness of Periodic Performance Evaluation
219
873
113525/2018/NM
Objectivityy in Annual Confidential Records
120
100
80 50 50 0
60 0 66.7
40 66.7 42.9
20 50 50
0 0 16.67
16.67 33.3 57.1 Partly
0
No
Yes
Figure 59 Survey Results- Objectivity in Annual Confidential Records
Without obejctive foundations, any scheme of performance evaluation is likely to be prone to

unfavourable subjectivity and abuse.
abuse. Thus it is important the the process of maintaining ACR
as the assessment method of the peformance of judicial officers shoudl be characterised by
objectivity. However, most of the respondents in all the States doubted the capacity of the
ACR as a system
tem to facilitate an objective assessment of the performance of judicial officers.
In almost all the States, the number of respondents answering in affirmative did not exceede
the number of respondents answering in negative or only partly affirmative. Even in Uttar
Pradesh where 57.1 percentage of respondents asnswered in affirmative, as many as 42.9
percentae of respondents answered in a categorial negative.
Comprhensiveness of Norms of Disposal
100
80 50 50 33.3
60 28.6
40 25 66.7
33.3
20 25 50 57.1
0 0 33.3 33.3 Partly
0 14.3 No
Yes
Figure 60 Survey Results- Comprehensiveness of Norms of Disposal
220
874
113525/2018/NM
The Norms of disposal in different states are expected to govern the quantitative workload of
judicial officers. It is expected that any system of quantitative yardsticks would be
sufficiently detailed
ed so as to cover the variety of functions being discharged by the judicial
officers. In all the States, majority of the respondents did not believe that the norms of
disposal are comprehensive enough to capture the entirety of their workload. Across all the
t
states, less than 20% of the respondents annswered this question in affirmative.
Objectivity in Paramteres of Assessment
120
100 0
25 0
80 0 0
60 50
40 50 66.7 66.7 28.6 5
20 25 50 14.3
0 0 0 33.3 28.6 4
0 33.3 0
0 28.6
3
2
1
Figure 61 Survey Results- Objectivity in Parameters of Assessment
Majority of the respondent in all the

the states felt that there is insufficient objectivity in the
parameters of assessment prevailing in their respective states. The average rating in different
states as to the degree of objectivity in the parameters of assessment is as follows;
3.14
2.67
2.67
3.5 3 2.5
3 Assam
2.5 Chhattisgarh
2 Uttar Pradesh Madhya Pradesh
1.5 Tamil Nadu
Madhya Pradesh Tamil Nadu
1
0.5 Chhattisgarh Uttar Pradesh
0 Assam
Figure 62 Average Rating- Objectivity in Parameters of Assessment
221
875
113525/2018/NM
Transparency of the Evaluaiton Process
120
100 0 0
80 50 0
60 50 50 16.7
0
0 16.7 28.6 5
40 25 14.3
20 25 50 16.7 33.3
0 14.3
0 33.3 33.3 28.6 4
14.3 3
2
1
Figure 63 Survey Results- Transparency of the Evaluation Process
Transparency is a fundamental requirement

requirement in any evaluation process. The parameters of
evaluationa and the process of evluation must be open in nature and in the nature of things
which happen in the background. Transparency is perhaps the most effective bulkwark
against tendencies to abuse authority.
authority. The responses concerning degree of transparency in the
evaluation process were consistently negative. The average rating of transparency in the
evaluation process in different States is as follows;
3.14
4 2.33
2.5 2.17 Assam
2.75
3 Chhattisgarh
Uttar Pradesh Madhya Pradesh
2 Tamil Nadu
1 Chhattisgarh Uttar Pradesh
0 Assam
Figure 64 Average Rating- Transparency of the Evaluation Process
222
876
113525/2018/NM
Communication Process of Performance Evaluation Results
120
100 0 0
80 25
50 16.7
60 50 16.7 28.6
50 0 0 5
40
20 25 50 33.3 50 42.9 4
0 0 0 16.7 14.3
16.7 3
14.3
2
1
Figure 65 Survey Results- Communication of Performance Evaluation Results
Existing systems of performance apprisal woud not be helpful unless the communciations
mechanism in such respects is robust and consistent. The perofrmance of a judicial officer
must not only be evaluated but also promptly communicated to enable him to process the
feddback at his end. Below is the average rating
rating of the communication process of evaluation
results in diffeerent States;
3.14
4 3.5 2.67
4
2.33 Assam
3 Chhattisgarh
2 Tamil Nadu
0 Assam
Figure 66 Average Rating- Communication of Performance Evaluation Results
223
877
113525/2018/NM
Encouragring Qualitative Performance
120
100 0 0 0 0
80 50 16.67
33.3 14.3
60 0
40 100 66.67 5
50 33.3 14.3
20 4
0 0 42.9
16.67 33.3
3
14.3
2
1
Figure 67 Survey Results- Encouraging Qualitative Performance
The qualitative profrmance of a judicial officer matters as much his quantitative performance.
A disproptionate emphasis on quantitative aspects of performance would be significantly
detrimental to thee cause of justice. Thus, systems of performance appraisal must not only
ensure the fulfilment of quantitative targets, but must also ensure that quality of performance
is not sacrificed in pursuits of quantitative targets. Below is the average rating in different
d
states in relation to the existing evaluation schemes encouraging qualitative performance;
2.71
2
3 2
Assam
2.5 2 1.5
Chhattisgarh
2
1.5 Tamil Nadu
1 Madhya Pradesh Tamil Nadu
0.5 Chhattisgarh Uttar Pradesh
0 Assam
Figure 68 Average Rating- Encouraging Qualitative Performance
224
878
113525/2018/NM
Dissemination of Evaluation Results
100
80 50 16.7
60 50 0 28.6
40 0 100
50 0 14.3
20 50 83.3
0 0 57.1 Judicial Peer Group
Public
Evaluated Judge
Figure 69 Survey Results- Dissemination of Evaluation Results
Majority of the respondents felt that the results of the evaluation process of a judicial officer
should be shared primarily with the concerend judicial officer only. However, close to 1/3rd
of the total respondents were not adverse to the results being shared within the judicial peer
group. Less than 5% of all the respondents were comfortable with the evaluaiton resutls being
made public.
Promotion as a Reward for Better Performing

Per Judges
100 25
50 50 33.3 33.3 0
75 0
0 0 50 66.7 66.7 85.7
0 0 14.3 Partly
No
Yes
Figure 70 Survey Results- Promotion as a Reward for Better Performing Judges
The prupsoe of any promotion scheme is to award the better performing members of the
organisation. As many as 68% of the respondents across
across all the states were of the view that
the existing schemes of promotion in their stated do not reward better performing judges.
225
879
113525/2018/NM
Transparency in Promotion Schemes
120
100 0 0
80 25 0
16.67 0
60 25 50 14.3
50 0
40 25 0 66.67 5
20 25 50 57.1
0 0 50 4
16.67
0 0
0 28.6 3
2
1
Figure 71 Survey Results- Transparency in Promotion Schemes
Transparency in the decision making process concerning prmotions of judicial officers should
be considred a non-negotiable
negotiable requirement. The decisions must not simply be fair but must be
open. The average rating of the promotion schemes in this regard in different states is not
satisfactory;
3
3
3 2.71
2.9
2.8 Assam
2.5
2.7 Chhattisgarh
Madhya Pradesh
2.6
2.5
Uttar Pradesh Tamil Nadu
2.5
Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh
2.4 Madhya Pradesh
2.3 Chhattisgarh
2.2 Assam
Figure 72 Average Rating- Transparency in Promotion Schemes
226
880
113525/2018/NM
Merit Cum Seniority as a Criterion for Promotion
120
100
80 50 33.3 0
16.67
60 75 28.6
0 0 5
40 0 33.3
20 25 50 66.67 28.6
0 0 16.7 0 4
0 16.7 0 14.3
16.67 28.6
3
2
1
Figure 73 Survey Results- Merit Cum Seniority as a Criterion for Promotion
Majority of the respondents favoured the princple of merit cum seniority as a criterion for
promotion. The avrage rating in different states in this respect is consistently higher than in
relation
elation to any other question;
3.14
5 4.5 4 2.83
3.17
Assam
4
Chhattisgarh
3
Tamil Nadu
2 Tamil Nadu
Madhya Pradesh
0 Assam
Figure 74 Average Rating- Merit Cum Seniority as a Criterion for Promotion
227
881
113525/2018/NM
Merit as a Criteria for Promotion
120
100 0
80 50 33.3 16.67
60 100 0 42.9
40 33.3 5
20 50 66.67
14.3 4
0 0 14.3
16.7
16.67
0 3
14.3
2
1
Figure 75 Survey Results- Merit as a Criterion for Promotion
As many as 60% of the respondents rated the concept of ‘only merit’ as a criteria for
promotion with rating of 4 or more. Under this system, the issue of seniority is not relevant is
determining questions of promotion and decisiosn are expected to be taken solely on the basis
of the merit of prospective candidates. Follwoing is the average rating in different states in
this respect;
5 4 3.57
5
4.5
3.17
4
Assam
3.5
Chhattisgarh
3 2
Madhya Pradesh
2.5
2 Uttar Pradesh Tamil Nadu
Tamil Nadu Uttar Pradesh
1.5
Madhya Pradesh
1
Chhattisgarh
0.5
0 Assam
Figure 76 Average Rating- Merit as a Criterion for Promotion
228
882
113525/2018/NM
150
100 0
50 50 16.7 16.67
50
50 50 83.3 66.67 42.9
0 0
0 16.67 42.9 Partly
14.3
No
Yes
Figure 77 Survey Results- Limited Competitive Examinations as Sufficient Test of

Merit
Limited competitive examinations are usually adopted in schemes of acclerated promotion

for being promoted as a District Judge. 64% of the respondents across all the states felt that
limited competitive exmainations do not sufficient test the suitability of
o candidates. Only
16% of the candidates felt that limitted competitive exmainations adequately test the
suitability of candidates.
Critical Impressions
It should be conceded from the outset that the sample size of the survey is limited and thus
drawing broad generalisations from the responses would not be advisable. However, many of
the comments submitted by the respondents and putting the respnses in the context of the
existing analyis of the official policies does facilitate a greater understanding of
o the problems
and challenges in the existing schemes of performance appraisal and promotion.
A number of comments by respondents from different states focussed on the fact that there is
often arbitrariness in the actions of the reporting officer while filling up the ACR proforma of
subordinate officers as the assessment is entirely depednent on the subjective decisions of the
reporting officer. These comments are also backed up by the consistenly low ratings of the
peformance appraisal schemes on factors
factor of objectivity.
229
883
113525/2018/NM
The earlier analysis of the perofmrance apparisal schemes has already revelaed that there is a
lack of objective assessment techniques of the parameters of performance evaluation in
almost all the states.
While it is absolutely essential that the criteria for evaluation of performance or the criteria
for promotion should be clearly laid down, that cannot be the end of process. It is submitted
that without categorical guidelines on how to assess the laid out criteria, subjective,
personalised and arbitrary assessment of the criteria cannot be mitigated. One of the most
obvious examples of such arbitrary exercise of power can be seen in the power of the
reporting officer to assess the integrity of the judicial officer. In all states, reporting officers
are expected to comment on the integrity/honesty of the judicial officer. In certain states the
exact question in the ACR is not even on the integrity/honesty of the judicial officer but on
‘reputation of integrity/honesty’ of the judicial officer. While the need to ensure continued
integrity on the part of judicial officers cannot be disputed, without assessment guidelines,
such powers can very easily become prone to abuse.
How is a person’s integrity to be measured? How does one measure one’s reputation? At
some level, such assessment is highly personalised and subjective. The impression about the
reputation of Y may depend entirely on the persons from whom such opinion is sought.
Unless there is a clear methodlogy to determine how to seek opinions on the honesty/integrity
of a judicial officer, there is not guarantee to ensure that a reproting officer would not abuse
this power for whatever might be his reasons for doing so. With such a nebulous mechanism,
it would be unfair if the reporting officer could simply mention that the integrity of a judicial
officer is doubtful or is not above suspicion. The only logical conclusion in case of doubtful
integrity is to initiate appropriate proceedings to make the judicial officer accountable. Thus,
allowing an adverse comment on doubtful integrity to stand in the absence of a tangible
assessment methodology might not be ideal. In such cases, it might be better not to authorise
the reporting officer to comment on the integrity of the judicial officer at all as part of annual
performance appraisal. If the integrity is doubtful, appropriate actions may be initiated.
This problem with lack of assessment guidelines can be observed not simply in this case but
in almost all criteria of performance appraisal or promotion. How to evluate the judgements
of a judicial officer? How many judgements to evaluate? How many marks per judgement?
How many marks for legal reasoning and how many for factual narration? How to assess the
230
884
113525/2018/NM
temparament of a judge in terms of his behaviour with litigants, colleagues or lawyers?

Answering these questions should not be subject to the personalised preferences of reporting
officers. No power to review the performance of subordinate officers shoudl be entrusted
without prescription of clear assessment guidlines.
Questionnaire
This survey contains questions about the performance evaluation mechanism and the
promotion schemes relating to the subordinate judges. This survey is a part of the Department
of Justice project on A Comparative Analysis of Performance Appraisal Mechanisms and
Schemes of Promotion in relation to the Judges of Subordinate Judiciary in different States in
India being implemented by National Law University Odisha. The questions are mostly
scale-based, yes or no questions. It will only take 10 minutes to complete this survey. Thank
you so much for you time.
1. Which court do you preside?
(Textual response is required)
PART I
2. Are you aware of the existing periodic performance evaluation system in your
state?
Yes
No
Partly
3. How would you rate the usefulness of periodic performance evaluation of judges
with 1 being ‘very bad’ and 5 being ‘very good’?
1
2
3
4
5
4. Do you think that maintaining Annual Confidential Record objectively assess the
performance of a judicial officer?
231
885
113525/2018/NM
Yes
No
Partly
5. Do you think that ‘norms of disposal’ in your state are a comprehensive
indicator of your workload?
Yes
No
Partly
6. In terms of objectivity in the parameters for assessing the performance of judges,

how would you rate the existing scheme with 1 being ‘very bad’ and 5 being
‘very good’?
1
2
3
4
5
7. In terms of transparency of the evaluation process, how would you rate the
existing scheme with 1 being ‘very bad’ and 5 being ‘very good’?
1
2
3
4
5
8. How would you rate the communication process in informing the judges
regarding their performance level with 1 being ‘very bad’ and 5 being ‘very
good’?
1
2
3
232
886
113525/2018/NM
4
5
9. How would you rate the current scheme of evaluation in terms of promoting
qualitative performance with 1 being ‘very bad’ and 5 being ‘very good’?
1
2
3
4
5
10. Who should the periodic performance appraisal of the subordinate judges be
available to?
To the judge who is being evaluated
To the public to instill confidence in the court system
Within the judicial peer group
Others
If others, please specify
PART II
11. Do you think that the current scheme of promotion in your state duly rewards
better performing judges?
Yes
No
Partly
12. How would you rate the transparency in the existing promotion schemes with 1
being ‘very bad’ and 5 being ‘very good’?
1
2
3
4
5
233
887
113525/2018/NM
13. How would you rate ‘merit cum seniority’ as a criterion for promotion with 1
being ‘very bad’ and 5 being ‘very good’?
1
2
3
4
5
14. How would you rate ‘only merit’ as criterion for promotion with 1 being ‘very
bad’ and 5 being ‘very good’?
1
2
3
4
5
15. Do you think limited competitive examination is sufficient to assess the merit of a
potential candidate for promotion?
Yes
No
Partly
234
888
113525/2018/NM
Analysis of Direct Recruitment of Judges

It may be clarified that the primary focus of the research undertaken was to examine the
systems of performance appraisal and promotion of judicial officers. Thus, the main concern
of the research consisted of matters pertaining to serving judicial officers and not on how
they are recruited. However, in the process of compiling the relevant regulations in each state
concerning performance appraisal and schemes of promotion, we found that we have data
regarding direct recruitment rules of most of the states in the depository of official policies
shared with us. Thus, this portion of the research report is in the form of an addendum and
provides a brief comparative overview of the system of direct recruitment in various states.
Here, we have discussed the eligibility criteria and the method of recruitment when the
candidates are directly recruited as judicial officers. The provisions regarding direct
recruitment to the post of civil judges (junior division) and district judges are provided in the
Rules itself. The system of Direct Recruitment has been analysed from two perspectives;
1. Eligibility Conditions
2. Method of Recruitment
A. Civil judge (junior division)

Direct recruitment is the only method of recruiting candidates to the post of civil judge
(junior division). When the candidates satisfy the eligibility criteria, they can appear for the
written examination and the viva voce. Usually, a minimum benchmark is provided for the
written examination and the candidates meeting the benchmark can appear for the viva voce.
i. Eligibility conditions
It may be noted that we have focused only on such conditions of eligibility which have been
expressly mentioned in the official rules or policies available with us.
After analysing the Rules of different states, the following eligibility conditions are common
in many states;
1. Academic qualification
2. Nationality
3. Age
235
889
113525/2018/NM
4. Prohibition of bigamy
5. Good character
6. No dismissal or expulsion from the service
7. No conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude
8. No involvement in unfair practices
9. Good health
The other eligibility conditions include language (Odisha, Maharashtra, and Uttar Pradesh),
no disciplinary action by the Bar Council of India or other statutory authority (Karnataka), no
professional misconduct (Chhattisgarh) and having not more than two children
(Maharashtra). Apart from these some states prescribe a minimum number of years of
practice or that the candidate should be qualified to practice.
Academic qualification
This eligibility condition is present in almost all the states (Assam, Manipur, Odisha,
Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh).
Under this eligibility condition, the candidate possessing a law degree from a university
established in India or recognised in India are eligible to be directly recruited as a civil judge
(junior division).
Nationality
This eligibility condition requires the candidates to be an Indian citizen. States like Assam,
Manipur, Odisha, Karnataka, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat, New
Delhi have this as an eligibility condition. Uttar Pradesh also allows the candidate who is a
subject of Sikkim, a Tibetan refugee who came to India before 1st January, 1962 with the
intention of permanently settling in India, a person of Indian origin who has migrated from
Pakistan, Burma, Ceylon or any of the East African countries of Kenya, Uganda and the
United Republic of Tanzania with the intention of permanently settling in India are also
eligible to be directly recruited to the post of civil judge (junior division).
Age
This eligibility condition prescribes the age of the candidates. In New Delhi, the candidate
should not be more than 32 years old. In Uttar Pradesh, the candidates should not be less than
22 and not more than 35 years of age. In Odisha, the candidates should not be more than 21
years of age and not more than 32 years of age.
236
890
113525/2018/NM
Prohibition of Bigamy
This eligibility condition bars the male candidate who has more than one wife living or the
female candidate who is married to a man already has a wife living from directly recruited as
a civil judge (junior division). States like Assam, Manipur, Odisha, Karnataka, Chhattisgarh,
Maharashtra, Gujarat, New Delhi and Uttar Pradesh have this as an eligibility condition.
Good Character
This eligibility condition requires the candidates to be of good character. However, this
phrase ‘good character’ is not defined in the Rules and is no technique has been provided in
the Rules for judging the good character of the candidates. States like Assam, Manipur,
Odisha, Karnataka, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh have this
as an eligibility condition.
No dismissal or expulsion from service

The candidates should not be expelled or dismissed from the service by the High Court,
Union Public Service Commission or State Public Service Commission or other statutory
bodies. States like Assam, Manipur, Odisha Karnataka, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Gujarat
and Uttar Pradesh have this as an eligibility condition. In Maharashtra, if the candidate has
not successfully completed his probation period in judicial service or in government or
statutory or local authority, s/he is not eligible to be recruited as civil judge (junior division).
No conviction for offences involving moral turpitude

The candidates should not have been convicted of any offence which involves moral
turpitude. Such candidates are not eligible to be recruited as civil judges (junior division).
States like Assam, Manipur, Odisha, Karnataka, Chhattisgarh, Maharashtra, Gujarat and Uttar
Pradesh have this as an eligibility condition.
No involvement in unfair practice

The candidates should not involve in any unfair practice with regard to her/his candidature. If
the candidates involve in any unfair practice, then s/he is not eligible to become a civil judge
(junior division).
Good health
Good health has been prescribed as an eligibility condition. A medical fitness certificate in
most states acts as a proof for this eligibility condition. States like Assam, Manipur, Odisha,
Karnataka, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra have this as an eligibility
237
891
113525/2018/NM
condition. In Uttar Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, ‘good health’ means both physical and mental
health.
Language
Language has been prescribed as an eligibility condition only in the states like Odisha,
Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh. In Odisha, the candidate should have passed examination in
Odia at the Middle English School standard. However, some states like Maharashtra, Odisha,
West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Chhattisgarh, New Delhi, Uttar Pradesh and Assam
have a translation paper which tests the knowledge of vernacular language. In Assam, the
knowledge of language is tested for ten marks (out of 100 marks) by way of objective
questions in the preliminary examination.
Assam
Table 137 – Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Assam
Eligibility Particulars
Academic Must be a holder of a degree in Law granted by a recognized University

Qualification established by law in Law.
Nationality Must be a citizen of India
Age Upper Limit: 35 years.
Bigamy A male candidate who has more than one wife living, or a female
candidate who has married a man already having a wife living, shall not be
eligible for appointment to any posts in the service.
Character Good character and is suitable in the opinion of the appointing authority in
all respects for appointment to the service.
Dismissal or The candidate must not have been permanently debarred or disqualified by
Expulsion the High Court or the Union Public Service Commission or any State
from Service Public Service Commission from appearing for examinations or selections
conducted by it
Conviction Must not be convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude.
238
892
113525/2018/NM
Unfair He directly or indirectly influences the recruiting authority by any means

Practices for his candidature.
Health Certified by the medical authority to be Medically fit to discharge the

duties of the post for which he is selected for appointment.
Manipur
Table 138 -Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Manipur
Academic Must be a holder of a degree in Law granted by a recognized University

Qualification established by law in Law.
conducted by it


239
893
113525/2018/NM
Odisha
Table 139 -Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Odisha
Academic A graduate in law of a recognized University or institutions recognized by

Qualifications the Government
Age Not below twenty one years of age and not above thirty two years of age
on the 1st day of the month of the August of the year in which
applications are invited
Age relaxation maximum age limit shall be relaxed by five years in case of the Scheduled
Castes. Scheduled Tribes, women and Orthopaedically Handicapped
candidates and by three years in case of candidates belonging to SEBC
Character Of good character
Health of sound health and free from any organic defects and physical infirmity
Other A Superintendent or a Ministerial Officer in the High Court or any Civil

eligibility or Criminal Court sub-ordinate to the High Court, or an Assistant Law
conditions Officer or Translator of the Law Department of Government, shall be
eligible for appearing at the competitive examination under rule 15 for
appointment as Civil Judge if he:
(a) Has approved service in the High Court or in any Civil or Criminal
Court sub-ordinate to High Court or in the Law Department of not less
than seven years on the last date fixed for receipt of application for the
said competitive examination; (b) Has been recommended by the
respective appointing authority; and
(c) Is not more than thirty nine years of age on the 1st day of the month of
August of the year in which applications are invited
Nationality He or she should be a citizen of India
No offence He or she should not have been convicted of an offence involving moral
involving turpitude
moral
240
894
113525/2018/NM
turpitude
No dismissal He or she should not have been dismissed from service by any High Court
from service or government or statutory or local authority or should not have been
permanently debarred or disqualified by the High Court or UPSC or any
state public service commission.
Prohibition of If he is a man and has more than one wife living and if a woman has more
bigamy has one husband or has married a man who has already another wife
living
Language able to speak, read and write Oriya fluently and must have passed an
examination in Oriya Language equivalent to that of Middle English
School standard
No unfair He or she should not directly influence the recruiting authority by any
practice means for his or her candidature.
West Bengal
Direct recruitment to posts mentioned in rule 6 (1) (a) is made be made by Governor in
accordance with WBSC recruitment rules, after consultation with High Court and the
commission. As the primary focus of the research was on performance appraisal and
promotion of judicial officers, we did not have the opportunity of examining the relevant
rules in Wes Bengal.
Karnataka
Table 140 -Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Karnataka
Academic Must be a holder of a degree in law granted by a university established by

Qualifications law in India & Must have been enrolled as an advocate
241
895
113525/2018/NM
Dismissal or A candidate is not eligible to recruitment if he is dismissed or removed

Expulsion from service or compulsorily retired by any High Court, Government or
from Service Statutory or local authority or other employer
Conviction Must not have been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude or
has been permanently debarred or disqualified by the High Court or the
Union Public Service Commission from appearing for examinations or
selections conducted by it or has been removed from its roll by any Bar
Council.
Disciplinary Disqualified if any penalty or punishment has been imposed by the Bar
Action Council or any disciplinary authority which makes the applicant
unsuitable for a judicial post.
Unfair The candidate shall be disqualified if he directly or indirectly influences

Practices the recruiting authority for his candidature.
Bigamy The marital status should not be bigamous
Character Must be of good character
Health Should be medically fit to discharge the duties of the post for which he is
appointed.
Tamil Nadu
Table 141 -Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Tamil Nadu
Academic Must possess a Degree in Law of a University in India established or

qualifications incorporate by or under a Central Act or a state Act or an institution
recognized by the University Grants Commission, or any other equivalent
qualification and got enrolled in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu; and in
the case of candidates enrolled in the Bar Councils of other States, they
should submit proof of transfer of their enrollment to the Bar Council of
Tamil Nadu.
242
896
113525/2018/NM
Years of (In addition to the above) Must be practicing as an advocate or Pleader in

practice the High Court or Courts subordinate thereto and must have so practiced
for not less than 3 years
(OR) Must be an Assistant Public Prosecutor having not less than 3

years of experience as an Advocate and/or Assistant Public Prosecutor.
AND Must have attained the age of 25 years and must not have attained
the age of 35 years in the case of General Category and 40 years in the
case of Reserved Categories. (OR) Must be a fresh Law Graduate
Possessing a degree in law from a recognized University as mentioned in
academic qualifications above, who is eligible to be enrolled or enrolled
as an Advocate and who has secured an overall percentage of 50% marks
in acquiring such a law degree in case of open categories and 45% marks
in respect of other reserved categories. (AND) Must have attained the age
of 22 years and must not have completed the age of 27 years
Chhattisgarh
Table 142 -Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Chhattisgarh
Nationality Citizen of India
Age Lower cap: 25yrs Upper cap: 35 yrs as on 1st January of the following
year.
Age relaxation A cap of 35 years which can be relaxed up to maximum limit of 5 yrs for
SC, ST and OBC and 10 yrs for women of SC, ST, OBC and General;
Additional 3yrs yrs of relaxation in both cases for temporary/ permanent
Government servant
Academic Degree in Law of any recognized University

qualification
Character Good character
243
897
113525/2018/NM
Health Sound health and mind and free from any disability rendering him unfit
for such appointment.
Bigamy Not eligible if more than one spouse living
Dismissal/remo Not eligible if removed by High court, statutory/local authority;

val from Permanently debarred by High court/UPSC/SPSC/SSC
service
Conviction Not eligible if convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude
Unfair means Not eligible if attempt to obtain support for his candidature by any means
Misconduct Not eligible if guilty of professional misconduct
Madhya Pradesh
Table 143 -Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Madhya Pradesh
Academic He must possess a degree in Law of any recognized University.

Qualifications
Age Lower limit: 21 years; Upper Limit: 35 years.
Health Should be of sound health and free from any bodily defect which renders
him unfit for appointment.
No Unfair He or she should not involve in any unfair practice regarding his or her
Practice candidature
244
898
113525/2018/NM
Maharashtra
Table 144- -Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Maharashtra
Academic Must be a holder of a degree in Law

Qualifications
Years of a) Must be practicing as an advocate in the High Court or Courts

Practice subordinate thereto for a period of not less than three years. OR
a) Must be a fresh Law Graduate who:
i. Has secured the degree in law by passing all the

examinations leading to the degree in the first
attempt;
ii. Has secured in the final year examination of the

degree in Law or in the case of candidates holding
Master’s Degree in Law in final year exam, not
less than 55% marks; OR
b) Must be working or must have worked as Public Prosecutor or

Government Advocate for not less than three years in the post or
posts. In computing the period of three years, the period during
which the candidate has worked as an Advocate shall also be
included; OR
c) Must be a member of Ministerial Staff-
(i) Of High Court or Courts subordinate thereto; or
(ii) Of offices of the Government Pleaders attached to those

Courts; or
(iii)Working as Legal Assistant and above in the Legal

Section of Law and Judiciary Department in Mantralaya
provided such employee has put in minimum three years
of service after obtaining Degree in Law.
Nationality Must be a citizen of India.
245
899
113525/2018/NM
Age Must have attained the age of 21 years and not more than,
a) 35 years in the case of Advocates with three years practice,

b) 25 years in the case of fresh law graduates
c) 45 years in the case of ministerial staff.
Language Candidate must have sufficient knowledge of Marathi so as to enable him

to speak, read & write in Marathi & to translate with facility from Marathi
into English & vice versa. Such knowledge must be certified-
(i) In case of an Advocate, by the District Judge of the District

where he practices;
(ii) In case of a fresh graduate, by Principal or Head of the College
or University department where the candidate was enrolled for
LL.B. or LL.M. Degree;
(iii) In case of members of Staff, by the Head of the Office under
whom such candidate is working;
(iv) in special circumstances, by re-employment of retired Civil
Judges (Junior Division)
The candidates must pass Marathi language test within six months as per
Government Rules.
Dismissal or He should not be dismissed or removed from service or compulsorily

Expulsion retired from judicial service or from service in Government or Statutory
from Service or Local authority or failed to complete probation period in judicial
service on any post, in Government or Statutory or Local authority.
Conviction He has been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude or who has
been permanently debarred or disqualified by the High Court or the Union
Public Service Commission from appearing for examinations or selections
conducted by it.
Unfair He directly or indirectly influences the recruiting authority for his

Practices candidature.

duties of the post for which he is selected.
246
900
113525/2018/NM
candidate who has married a man already having a wife living, shall not
be eligible for appointment to any posts in the service.
Number of The candidate will not be eligible if s/he has more than two children
Children
Character Good character and is suitable in the opinion of the Appointing Authority
in all respects for appointment to the service.
Gujarat
Table 145 –Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Gujarat
Academic Law degree from university established by law in India

qualification
Years of Not less than 5 years as an advocate in courts of civil and criminal
practice jurisdictions
Age Must have attained 35 years in case of others and 38 years in case of
SC/ST
New Delhi
Table 146 –Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as Civil Judge in New Delhi
Practice Person practicing as an advocate in India or one qualified to be an advocate

under Advocates Act 1961
Age Not more than 32 yrs
Bigamy No person who has more than one wife living (Administrator can exempt if
247
901
113525/2018/NM
satisfied that special grounds exist) and no woman who is married to any
person who has a wife living shall be appointed Administrator can exempt
if satisfied that special grounds exist)
Uttar Pradesh
Table 147 –Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Uttar Pradesh
Academic (a) must be a bachelor of laws of a University established by law in Uttar

Qualifications Pradesh or any other University of India recognized for this purpose by the
Governor; or
(b) must be an advocate enrolled under the provisions of the Advocates

Act, 1961 or a Barrister of England or Northern Ireland or a member
Faculty of Advocates in Scotland and is entitled to practice in the court or
courts subordinate there to.
Nationality (a) a citizen of India, or
(b) a Tibetan refugee who came over to India before the 1st January, 1962
with the intention of permanently settling in India, or
© a person of Indian origin who has migrated from Pakistan, Burma, Sri
Lanka or any of the East African countries of Kenya, Uganda and the
United Republic of Tanzania (formerly Tanganyika and Zanzibar) with the
intention of permanently settling in India.
Age Must have attained 22 years of age and must not have attained more than
35 years of age.
Language Must possess a thorough knowledge of Hindi in Devanagri Script;
Bigamy A male candidate who has more than one wife living, or a female candidate
who has married a man already having a wife living, shall not be eligible
for appointment to a posts in the service.
Character Character of a candidate must be such as to render him suitable in the

opinion of the Governor in all respects for appointment to the service.
248
902
113525/2018/NM
Dismissal or Persons dismissed by the Union Government or by a State Government or

Expulsion debarred by the Bar Council of India or a State
from Service
Conviction Must not be convicted & sentenced for imprisonment or any offence under
the Indian Penal Code or any other law involving moral turpitude shall not
be eligible for appointment to the service.
Good health Good mental and bodily health and free from any physical defect likely to
interfere with efficient performance of his duties
ii. Method of Recruitment

The method of recruitment to the post of civil judge (junior division) is through written
examination which is followed by a viva-voce. Most of the states conduct a main
examination and a viva voce but, however, some states, like Odisha and Chhattisgarh,
conduct a preliminary examination also in addition to the main examination and the viva
voce. In Maharashtra, if the recruiting authority deems it necessary to conduct a preliminary
examination, it may hold the same. In West Bengal, the method of recruitment to the post of
civil judge (junior division) is decided by the High Court from time to time.
The following table shows the method of recruitment to the post of civil judge (junior
division) and the quantitative weightage given to such examinations:
Table 148- Comparative Overview of Scheme of Recruitment for Civil Judges
States Preliminary Main examination Viva voce

examination
Assam 100 marks 400 marks 50 marks
Manipur NA 400 marks 70 marks
Odisha 100 marks 750 marks 100 marks
West Bengal As decided by the As decided by the As decided by the

High Court from High Court from High Court from
time to time time to time time to time
Karnataka 100 marks 400 marks 100 marks
249
903
113525/2018/NM
Tamil Nadu NA 400 marks 60 marks
Chhattisgarh Marks not specified 100 marks 15 marks

in the schedule
Madhya Pradesh NA Will be notified by Will be notified by

the High Court at the the High Court at the
time of notification time of notification
of vacancies. of vacancies.
Maharashtra the Recruiting 200 marks 50 marks

Authority may, if
necessary hold
preliminary
examination
Gujarat NA 200 marks 50 marks
New Delhi 200 marks 850 marks 150 marks
Uttar Pradesh NA 1000 marks 100 marks
250
904
113525/2018/NM
Main examination and Viva marks- Civil judge (junior

division) Direct recruitment
Main examination Viva voce
1000
850
750
400 400 400 400
200 200
150
70 100 100 100 100
50 60 50 50
15
Figure 78 Scheme of Main Examination and Viva for Direct recruitment as Civil Judges
Below is the method of recruitment in each state to the post of civil judge (junior division):
Assam
The recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) takes place through direct
recruitment on the basis of aggregate marks obtained in the Competitive Examination which
consists of the following:
Table 149 – Scheme of Recruitment of Civil Judges in Assam
Scheme of Recruitment Marks allotted

Preliminary examination 100 marks
Main Examination 400 marks
Viva-Voce 50 marks
251
905
113525/2018/NM
1. A detailed syllabus for the Main Examination is prescribed in the Clause A (2) of
Schedule B of the Assam Judicial Service Rules, 2005. The breakup of marks for the
Main Examination is as follows:
Table 150 – Scheme of Main Examination for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Assam
Scheme of Recruitment Subject Marks allotted

Main Examination Paper on English 100
General Knowledge 100
Law Paper I 100
Law Paper II 100
Total: 400
2. A candidate should obtain 60% marks or corresponding grade in Main examination to

be eligible for viva-voce and candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled
Tribe must obtain a minimum of 50% marks in the Main examination to be eligible for
viva-voce.
Table 151 – Scheme of Viva for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Assam
Scheme of Recruitment Marks Allotted

Viva-voce 70
Total: 70
The object of Viva-voce examination is to assess the suitability of the candidate for the cadre
by judging the following:
Table 152 – Parameters of Viva for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Assam
Viva voce
Mental alertness
Knowledge of law
Clear and logical exposition
252
906
113525/2018/NM
Balance of judgment
Skills
Attitude
Ethics
Power of assimilation
Power of communication
Character
Intellectual depth, etc.
3. Selection of candidates is based on cumulative grade value obtained in Main and viva
voce. The mode of evaluating the performance of Grading in the Main & viva-voce
examinations shall be specified in Schedule B of the Assam Judicial Service Rules,
2005. The following tabulator is used to convert the numerical marks into grades in a
seven point scale with corresponding grade values as follows:
Table 153 Scheme of Grades for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Assam
Percentage of marks Grade Grade Value
O 7
70% and above
A+ 6
65-69
A 5
60-64
B+ 4
55-59
B 3
50-54
C+ 2
45-49
C 1
40-44
F 0
Below 40%
4. In this manner, the result of the Main examination and viva voce will be indicating only
the cumulative evaluation grade of the candidates which moderates the inevitable
253
907
113525/2018/NM
element of subjectivity in individual evaluation and brings in relative objectivity and

fairness to much higher degree.
5. The final selection list will be readied by combining the Cumulative Grade value
obtained in the Main Examination and viva voce examination.
Manipur
recruitment on the basis of aggregate marks obtained in the Competitive Examination which
Table 154 Scheme of Recruitment of Civil Judges in Manipur
Main Examination 400
Viva-Voce 70
1. A detailed syllabus for the Main Examination is prescribed in the Clause A (2) of
Schedule B of the Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005. The breakup of marks for the
Main Examination shall be as follows:
Table 155 – Scheme of Main Examination for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Manipur

Main Examination Paper on English 100
Law Paper I 100
Law Paper II 100
Total: 400

254
908
113525/2018/NM
viva-voce.
Table 156 – Scheme of Viva for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Manipur

Viva-voce 70
Total: 70
Table 157 - Parameters of Viva for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Manipur
Other criteria
Mental alertness
Knowledge of law
Balance of judgment
Skills
Attitude
Ethics
Character
Selection of candidates shall be based on cumulative grade value obtained in Main and viva
examinations shall be specified in Schedule B of the Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005.
255
909
113525/2018/NM
The following tabulator is used to convert the numerical marks into grades in a seven point
scale with corresponding grade values as follows:
Table 158 – Scheme of Grades for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Manipur
O 7
70% and above
A+ 6
65-69
A 5
60-64
B+ 4
55-59
B 3
50-54
C+ 2
45-49
C 1
40-44
F 0
Below 40%
In this manner, the result of the Main examination and viva voce will be indicating only the
cumulative evaluation grade of the candidates which moderates the inevitable element of
subjectivity in individual evaluation and brings in relative objectivity and fairness to much
higher degree.
The final selection list will be readied by combining the Cumulative Grade value obtained in
the Main Examination and viva voce examination.
Odisha
The main exam shall be on the following two compulsory papers and three optional papers.
Each of the compulsory subjects carries 150 marks and the examination is for duration of two
and half hours and each of the optional subjects carries 150 marks and the examination is for
duration of three hours.
256
910
113525/2018/NM
Table 159 - Scheme of Recruitment of Civil Judges in Odisha
Scheme of examination Marks
Preliminary One paper of 100 marks
Main Two compulsory papers each 150 marks. 2

and half hrs duration and three optional
papers 150 marks
Viva 100 marks
Main exam
Table 160 – Scheme of Main Examination for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Odisha
Compulsory papers marks Optional papers marks
Paper I: 150 Law of Crime & Law of Torts 150
General English
Paper II 150 Personal Law: 150
Procedural Laws
Law of Property: 150
Law of contract : 150
Jurisprudence and Constitution 150

of India.
Viva-voce:
Interview shall carry 100 marks. Questions to be asked in the interview may not ordinarily be
outside the syllabus prescribed for the written examination. In the interview question
257
911
113525/2018/NM
covering broad national and International issues and matters of common interest in the field
of Arts and Science may also be asked.
West Bengal
The West Bengal Public Service commission conducts examination and forwards the list of
qualified candidates in order of merit and such will be considered for appointment to
available vacant posts according to rule 6(1)(a)
The selection process conducted by the commission as per syllabus available on their website
as on 2017-
Table 161 - Scheme of Recruitment of Civil Judges in West Bengal
Exam Marks
200
Preliminary exam
1100
Final exam
100
Personality test
Preliminary exam:
The preliminary exam is One paper of Objective type Multiple Choice Questions of 200
marks.
Table 162 – Scheme of Preliminary Examination for Recruitment as Civil Judge in

West Bengal
Syllabus Marks
English Composition 30
General Knowledge, Current Affairs and 40

Test of Reasoning
Indian Constitution= 20 marks 20
258
912
113525/2018/NM
Law of Contracts and Torts= 20 marks 20
Laws of Evidence= 20 marks 20
Law of Limitation= 20 marks 20
Criminal Procedure Code and Indian 20

Penal Code
Personal Law 10
Civil Procedure Code 20
Main exam
The main exam consists of 8 compulsory papers and 3 optional papers from 8 papers of each
100 marks.
Table 163 – Scheme of Main Examination for Recruitment as Civil Judge in West
Bengal
Compulsory papers Optional papers

1. Hindu Law
1. English Composition, Essay and
2. Muhammadan Law
Précis writing
3. Jurisprudence and Principles of
2. Bengali / Hindi / Urdu / Nepali
Legislation
Composition, Essay and
4. Indian Law relating to Companies and
Translation from English into
Insurance
Bengali / Hindi / Urdu / Nepali
5. Principles of Equity including the
3. General Knowledge and Current
Law of Trusts and Specific Relief
Affairs
6. Partnership Act
4. Civil Procedure Code
7. Law of Limitation and Law of
5. Criminal Procedure Code and
Prescription
Indian Penal Code
259
913
113525/2018/NM
6. Indian Evidence Act 8. The Indian Constitution and

7. Law of Contracts and Torts Constitutional Law.
8. Transfer of Property Act
Karnataka
recruitment on the basis of aggregate marks obtained in the Competitive Examination
conducted by the High Court.
The Competitive Examination consists of the following:
Table 164 - Scheme of Recruitment of Civil Judges in West Karnataka
Preliminary examination 100
Viva-Voce 100
1. The detailed syllabus for the Main examination is provided in Rule 5 II (1)(a) of the
Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004.
Table 165 – Scheme of Main Examination for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Karnataka
Examination Subject Marks allotted
Main Examination Translation Paper 100
Law Paper I 100
Law Paper II 100
Law Paper III 100
Total: 400
260
914
113525/2018/NM
2. To be eligible for viva-voce a general candidate should obtain 40 marks in Main

examination in each paper individually and a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe
candidate must obtain a minimum of 30 marks in each paper of the Main examination.
From among the candidates who are eligible for viva-voce such number of candidates as is
equal to 7 times the number of vacancies notified, selected in order of merit, shall be called
for viva voce examination. The knowledge of computer/operation of laptop will be
conducted at the time of viva voce for 25 marks.
Table 166 – Scheme of Viva for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Karnataka
Viva-Voce 100
Total: 100
A selected list of candidates in prepared in order of merit on the basis of the aggregate marks
obtained in the Main examination & viva-voce test and published in the Official Gazette.
Tamil Nadu
The recruitment takes place through direct recruitment on the basis of a written examination
and viva voce. No candidate who has secured less than the minimum marks specified for the
written examination shall be eligible for viva-voce.
Table 167 - Scheme of Recruitment of Civil Judges in Tamil Nadu
Scheme of recruitment Marks allotted
Written examination 400
Viva voce 60
Total 460
The competitive examination consists of the following-
261
915
113525/2018/NM
Table 168 – Scheme of Main Examination for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Tamil
Nadu
Written examination Marks allotted
Translation paper 100 marks
Law paper I 100 marks
Law paper II 100 marks
Law paper III 100 marks
Total 400 marks
Table 169 – Parameters of Viva for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Tamil Nadu
Viva voce
The candidate’s General Knowledge and

Knowledge of law, grasp of Procedural
Laws and Principles of Law and his
suitability for appointment as Civil Judge
shall be tested. The minimum marks for a
pass in the viva-voce for all categories of
candidates shall be 18
Chhattisgarh
The Service consists of Civil Judge and Senior Civil Judge. Direct recruitment is done for
the post of Civil Judge at entry level only. Schedule I provide that such examination shall
consist of:
i. Preliminary examination
ii. Final examination
iii. Viva-voice
262
916
113525/2018/NM
Table 170 - Scheme of Recruitment of Civil Judges in Chhattisgarh
Examination Particulars
- 2 Hours
Preliminary
- Objective-type questions from various laws
Examination
- Marks not specified in the Rules
- 100 marks
Final
- Meritorious candidates from prelims in 1:10
Examination
ratio are eligible
- Consists of framing issues, writing judgments
and translation
- Meritorious candidates from mains in 1:10 ratio
Viva-Voice
- Maximum 15 marks
Madhya Pradesh
recruitment on the basis of selection through Competitive Examination. The High Court
prescribes the procedure and curriculum for holding examination for the selection of
candidates.
The Competitive Examination for recruitment for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division),
which is conducted by the High Court, consists of the following:
Table 171 - Scheme of Recruitment of Civil Judges in Madhya Pradesh
Examination Particulars
Main Examination No particulars
Viva-Voce No particulars
The detailed syllabus for the examination is notified by the High Court at the time of
notification of vacancies.
263
917
113525/2018/NM
Maharashtra
recruitment on the basis of aggregate marks obtained in the Competitive Examination.
For the purpose of short listing the candidates, the Recruiting Authority may, if necessary
hold preliminary examination comprising of multiple choice objective type questions, which
can be scrutinized by computers and call upon the candidates obtaining the cut-off marks, as
may be fixed by the Recruiting Authority, to appear for final examination, maintaining the
ratio of 1:10 of the available vacancies of the successful candidates.
Table 172 - Scheme of Recruitment of Civil Judges in Maharashtra
Preliminary Examination No particulars
Viva-Voce 50
The Competitive Examination consists of a Main exam & viva-voce in the following manner:
Table 173- Scheme of Main Examination for Recruitment as Civil Judge in

Maharashtra
Main Examination Civil Law 100
Criminal Law 100
Total: 200
The medium of Main exam can be Marathi or English.
A candidate should obtain 50 marks in Main examination in each paper to be eligible for
viva-voce and candidate belonging to the backward communities must obtain a minimum of
45% marks in each paper of the Main examination to be eligible for viva-voce.
264
918
113525/2018/NM
Table 174 – Scheme of Viva for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Maharashtra
Viva-voce 50
Total: 50
A selected list of candidates is prepared in order of merit on the basis of the aggregate marks
obtained in the Main examination & viva-voce and published in the Official Gazette.
Gujarat
The competitive exam for direct recruitment to the cadre of both district judge and civil judge
(junior division) are:
Table 175 - Scheme of Recruitment of Civil Judges in Gujarat
Examination Marks allotted
Written examination 200 marks
Viva voce 50 marks
Total 250 marks

A candidate has to secure 50% or more in the written examination to be eligible for viva
(45% for SC/ST) and the minimum qualifying marks in viva is 40%.
New Delhi
Recruitment after the initial recruitment shall be made on the basis of a competitive
examination to be held by the High Court in Delhi, preferably twice a year. Selection
committee shall call for viva-voce only such candidates qualified at written test Syllabus for
the examination:
265
919
113525/2018/NM
Table 176 – Scheme of Preliminary Examination, Main Examination and Viva for
Recruitment as Civil Judge in Guajrat
Exam Features/subjects Marks

200 marks
Preliminary exam - Objective type
- 25% negative
marking
- 60% qualifying
marks for general
category
- 55% for
SC/ST/Physically
handicapped
1. GK and language - 250 marks

Main exam
2. Civil law I - 200 marks
- 200 marks
3. Civil Law II
- 200 marks
4. Criminal Law
Viva-voce 150 marks
Total- 1200 marks
Uttar Pradesh
recruitment on the basis of Competitive Examination as per Rule 7 of the Uttar Pradesh
Judicial Service Rules, 2001. The detailed syllabus of the Competitive Examination is
prescribed in Appendix II of the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service Rules, 2001.
Table 177 - Scheme of Recruitment of Civil Judges in Uttar Pradesh
Viva-Voce 100
266
920
113525/2018/NM
The Competitive Examination for recruitment for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division)
Table 178 – Scheme of Main Examination and Viva in Uttar Pradesh
Examination Subjects Marks Allotted
Language 200
Main Examination Law I-Substantive Law 200
Law II-Procedure & Evidence 200
Law III-Penal, Revenue & 200

Local Laws
Viva-Voce 100
Total: 1100
The suitability of the candidate for employment in the Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service is tested
with reference to his merit giving due regard to the following:
Table 179 – Other Criteria for Recruitment as Civil Judge in Uttar Pradesh
Other criteria
Ability
Character
Personality
Physique
267
921
113525/2018/NM
B. District judges
Direct recruitment is one of the modes of getting recruited as district judges. The other modes
are through regular promotion and accelerated promotion from the cadre of senior civil judge.
When the candidate posses the eligibility conditions as prescribed in the Rules, they may
appear for the written examination which is followed by a viva voce. Based on their
performance in the written examination and the viva voce, they may be recruited to the post
of district judges.
i. Eligibility conditions
It may be noted that we have focused only on such conditions of eligibility which have been
expressly mentioned in the official rules or policies available with us.
The following are the common eligibility conditions which are expressly laid down in the
respective Rules:
1. Minimum years of practice

2. Academic qualification
3. Nationality
4. Age
5. Prohibition of bigamy
6. Good character
7. No expulsion or dismissal from service
8. No conviction on any offence involving
9. No involvement in unfair practice
10. Good health
Other criteria includes that the candidate should not have involved in professional misconduct
(Chhattisgarh), there should not be any disciplinary action by the Bar Council of India or
other statutory authority (Karnataka), the candidate should be proficient in the local language
(Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh), the candidate should not have more than two children
(Maharashtra).
Minimum years of practice

The minimum number of years of practice, that is, seven years, as an advocate is prescribed
as an eligibility condition in all states. In Gujarat, however, the minimum number of years of
practice as an advocate is five years.
268
922
113525/2018/NM
Academic qualification
States like Assam, Gujarat, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Manipur, Odisha, Tamil Nadu expressly
prescribe this an eligibility condition. We have already discussed this eligibility condition in
the direct recruitment of civil judges (junior division) section.
Nationality
States like Assam, Manipur, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, New Delhi, Gujarat, Karnataka, Madhya
Pradesh, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal have this as an eligibility condition. We
have already discussed this eligibility condition in the direct recruitment of civil judges
(junior division) section.
Age
Some states prescribe a minimum age and a maximum age to be eligible to be recruited as a
district judge. Usually in such states, the candidates should not be less than 35 and should not
be more than 45. In Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, there is no minimum age requirement;
however, the candidates should not be more than 45 years of age. In Gujarat, there is no
maximum age prescribed as an eligibility condition.
Prohibition of bigamy
States like Assam, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, New Delhi, Gujarat, Karnataka, Maharashtra,
Manipur, Uttar Pradesh prescribe this as an eligibility condition. We have already discussed
this eligibility condition in the direct recruitment of civil judges (junior division) section.
Good character
States like Assam, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Manipur, Uttar Pradesh
prescribe this as an eligibility condition. We have already discussed this eligibility condition
in the direct recruitment of civil judges (junior division) section.
No expulsion or dismissal from service

States like Assam, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Manipur and Uttar
Pradesh have this as an eligibility condition. We have already discussed this eligibility
condition in the direct recruitment of civil judges (junior division) section.
No conviction for any offence involving moral turpitude

States like Assam, Odisha, Chhattisgarh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Manipur have
this as an eligibility condition. We have already discussed this eligibility condition in the
direct recruitment of civil judges (junior division) section.
269
923
113525/2018/NM
No involvement in unfair practices

States like Assam, Odisha, Gujarat, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Manipur have this as an
eligibility condition. We have already discussed this eligibility condition in the direct
recruitment of civil judges (junior division) section.
Good health
States like Assam, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Manipur, Uttar
Pradesh, West Bengal have this as an eligibility condition. We have already discussed this
eligibility condition in the direct recruitment of civil judges (junior division) section.
Language
Only Maharashtra, Odisha and Uttar Pradesh have this as an eligibility condition. However,
in some states, like Chhattisgarh, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra and West Bengal, there are
translation papers which test the knowledge of language of the candidates. In Assam, the
language proficiency is tested for 10 marks.
Below are the eligibility conditions for direct recruitment to the post of district judges in
different states:
Assam
Table 180 – Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as District Judge in Assam
Years of Must be practicing as an advocate in Courts of Civil and Criminal

Practice jurisdiction on the last date fixed for receipt of applications and must have
so practiced for a period of not less than 7 years as on the date.
Academic Must be a holder of a degree in Law of a recognized University.

Qualification
270
924
113525/2018/NM
conducted by it


Manipur
Table 181 – Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as District Judge in Manipur
Years of Must be practicing as an advocate in Courts of Civil and Criminal

Practice jurisdiction on the last date fixed for receipt of applications and must have
so practiced for a period of not less than 7 years as on the date.
Academic Must be a holder of a degree in Law of a recognized University.

Qualification
271
925
113525/2018/NM
conducted by it


Odisha
Table 182 – Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as District Judge in Odisha
Academic graduate in Law of a recognized University or an institution

Qualification recognized by the Government
Years of practice be having at least seven years of practices as an advocate on the

1st day of August of the year in which the advertisement for
receipt of application is published
Age not be below thirty-five years of age and above forty-five years
of age on the 1st day of August of the year in which the
advertisement for receipt of application is published
Nationality He or she should be a citizen of India
No offence He or she should not have been convicted of an offence

involving moral involving moral turpitude
turpitude
No dismissal from He or she should not have been dismissed from service by any
service High Court or government or statutory or local authority or
should not have been permanently debarred or disqualified by
272
926
113525/2018/NM
the High Court or UPSC or any state public service

commission.
Prohibition of If he is a man and has more than one wife living and if a woman
bigamy has more has one husband or has married a man who has
already another wife living
Language able to speak, read and write Oriya fluently and must have
passed an examination in Oriya Language equivalent to that of
Middle English School standard
No unfair practice He or she should not directly influence the recruiting authority
by any means for his or her candidature.
West Bengal
Table 183 – Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as District Judge in West Bengal
Age Attained the age of 35 years and has not

attained the age of 45 years on the first day
of January of the year in which the
applications for recruitment are invited;
Character he has good character and is of sound health

and free from any bodily defect which
renders him unfit for such appointment.
Relaxation of age 3 years on upper age for the candidates

belonging to the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes
Minimum years of practice 7 years as an advocate
273
927
113525/2018/NM
Karnataka
Table 184 – Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as District Judge in Karnataka
Academic Must be a holder of a degree in law granted by a university established by

Qualifications law in India.
Years of Must have practiced as an Advocate in the High Court or in a subordinate

Practice Court for a period of not less than seven years for not less than 7 years
Dismissal or A candidate is not eligible to recruitment if he is dismissed or removed

Expulsion from from service or compulsorily retired by any High Court, Government or
Service Statutory or local authority or other employer
Conviction Must not have been convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude or
has been permanently debarred or disqualified by the High Court or the
Union Public Service Commission from appearing for examinations or
selections conducted by it or has been removed from its roll by any Bar
Council.
Disciplinary Disqualified if any penalty or punishment has been imposed by the Bar
Action Council or any disciplinary authority which makes the applicant unsuitable
for a judicial post.
Unfair The candidate shall be disqualified if he directly or indirectly influences

Practices the recruiting authority for his candidature.
Bigamy The marital status should not be bigamous
Character Must be of good character
Health Should be medically fit to discharge the duties of the post for which he is
appointed.
274
928
113525/2018/NM
Tamil Nadu
Table 185 – Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as District Judge in Tamil Nadu
Years of Currently practicing on the day of notification and must have practiced as
Practice an advocate for not less than 7 years
Age Must be less than 48 years in case of SC/ST and less than 45 years in case
of others
Academic Must possess a Degree in Law of a University in India established or

Qualifications incorporate by or under a Central Act or a state Act or an institution
recognized by the University Grants Commission, or any other equivalent
qualification and got enrolled in the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu; and in
the case of candidates enrolled in the Bar Councils of other States, they
should submit proof of transfer of their enrollment to the Bar Council of
Tamil Nadu.
Chhattisgarh
Table 186 – Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as District Judge in Chhattisgarh
Eligibility Particular
Age Lower cap 35yrs. Upper cap: 45 yrs as on 1st January of the following
year.
Age relaxation A cap of 45y years which can be relaxed up to maximum limit of 3 yrs
for SC, ST and OBC
Health Sound health and mind and free from any disability rendering him unfit
for such appointment.
Years of Advocate for at least 7 years

practice
275
929
113525/2018/NM
Bigamy Not eligible if more than one spouse living
Dismissal/remo Not eligible if removed by High court, statutory/local authority or

val from Permanently debarred by High court/UPSC/SPSC/SSC
service
Misconduct Not eligible if guilty of professional misconduct
Conviction Not eligible if Convicted of an offence involving moral turpitude
Madhya Pradesh
Table 187 – Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as District Judge in Madhya Pradesh
Years of Must have practiced as an Advocate or pleader for not less than 7 years
Practice
Health No person shall be eligible to be appointed to the service unless he is in of

sound health and free from any bodily defect which renders him unfit for
appointment.
Maharashtra
Table 188– Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as District Judge in Maharashtra
Years of Must be practicing as an advocate in the High Court or Courts subordinate

Practice thereto for a period of not less than 7 years on the date of publication of
advertisement Or Must be working or must have worked as Public
Prosecutor or Government Advocate for not less than 7 years in the post or
posts.
276
930
113525/2018/NM
Academic Must be a holder of a degree in Law

Qualification
Language Must be certified by the Principal Judge of the District, where the
candidate practices, or within whose jurisdiction he ordinarily resides, to
have sufficient knowledge of Marathi to enable him to speak, read, write &
translate from Marathi to English & vice-versa.
Number of The candidate will not be eligible if s/he has more than two children
Children
Character Good character and is suitable in the opinion of the Appointing Authority
in all respects for appointment to the service.
Expulsion the High Court or the Union Public Service Commission from appearing
from Service for examinations or selections conducted by it
Unfair He directly or indirectly influences the recruiting authority for his

Practices candidature.

duties of the post for which he is selected.
277
931
113525/2018/NM
Gujarat
Table 189 – Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as District Judge in Gujarat
Academic qualification Law degree from university established by

law in India
Years of practice Not less than 5 years as an advocate in courts

of civil and criminal jurisdictions
Age Must not have attained 35 years (in case of

others) and 38yrs (in case of SC/ST, OBC)
Dismissal or expulsion from service Persons Dismissed from service by

central/state Government or U.Ts or any
High Court or statutory/local authority or
Permanently debarred by the High court or
UPSC/SPSC etc shall not be eligible for
recruitment
Conviction Not eligible if Convicted of an offence

involving moral turpitude
Unfair means If a person directly or indirectly influences

the recruiting authority by any means for his
candidature, not eligible for recruitment
Bigamy If a man, has more than one wife living and if

woman, has married a man already having
another wife, not eligible
278
932
113525/2018/NM
New Delhi
Table 190 – Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as District Judge in New Delhi
Years of practice 7 yrs as an advocate
Bigamy No person having more than one wife is

eligible (Administrator may exempt if
satisfied on existence of special grounds) and
no woman who is married to any person who
has a wife living shall be eligible
(Administrator may exempt if satisfied on
existence of special grounds)
Age Attained 35yrs and not attained 45yrs on the

day when applications invited for
appointment.
Uttar Pradesh
Table 191 – Eligibility Conditions for Recruitment as District Judge in Uttar Pradesh
Years of Must have practiced as an Advocate for not less than 7 years
Practice
Nationality (a) A citizen of India or
(b) a subject of Sikkim, or
(c) a Tibetan refugee who came over to India before 1st January, 1962
with the intention of permanently settling in India, or
(d) a person of Indian origin who has migrated from Pakistan, Burma,
Ceylon or any of the East African countries of Kenya, Uganda, and the
279
933
113525/2018/NM
United Republic of Tanzania (formerly Tanganayika and Zanzibar) with

the intention of permanently settling in India;
Language Must possess knowledge of Hindi in Devanagri script
Character Character of a candidate must be such as to render him suitable in the

opinion of the Governor in all respects for appointment to the service.
Dismissal or Persons dismissed by the Union Government or by a State Government or

Expulsion by a Corporation owned or controlled by the Union or State Government
from Service shall not be eligible for recruitment.
Health No person shall be appointed to the service unless he is in good mental and
bodily health, free from any physical defect likely to interfere with the
efficient performance of his duties as a member of the service.
ii. Method of Recruitment
The direct recruitment to the post of district judges is usually through written examination
and viva voce. Only Uttar Pradesh conducts a preliminary examination in addition to the
main examination and viva voce. In Maharashtra, if it may deem necessary for the recruiting
authority, it may hold a preliminary examination.
The following table shows the method of recruitment in different states in India:
Table 192 – Comparative Overview of Scheme of Recruitment for District Judges
States Preliminary Main examination Viva voce

examination
Assam NA 300 50
Manipur NA 300 50
280
934
113525/2018/NM
Odisha NA 200 30
West Bengal NA As decided by the As decided by the

High Court from High Court from
time to time time to time
Karnataka NA 300 100
Tamil Nadu NA 75 25
Chhattisgarh NA 200 20
Madhya Pradesh NA As decided by the As decided by the

High Court from High Court from
time to time time to time
Maharashtra the Recruiting 800 100

Authority may, if
necessary hold
preliminary
examination
Gujarat NA 200 50
New Delhi NA 750 250
Uttar Pradesh 100 800 100
281
935
113525/2018/NM
Main examination and Viva marks- DJ Direct recruitment

Main examination Viva
800 800
750
300 300 300

250
200 200 200
100 75 100 100
50 50 30 25 20 50
Figure 79 Scheme of Main Examination and Viva for Direct Recruitment as District Judge
Below is the method of recruitment to the post of district judge in each states:
Assam
For the purpose of recruitment to the cadre of District Judge the selection is done on the basis
of a Competitive Examination consisting of a main examination and viva-voce to be held at
such intervals by the High Court from time to time as determined.
Table 193 – Scheme of Recruitment of District Judges in Assam
Viva-Voce 50
282
936
113525/2018/NM
1. The Main Examination shall consist of the following:
Table 194 – Scheme of Main Examination and Viva for Recruitment as District Judge
in Assam
Direct Recruitment Subject Marks allotted
Main Examination Paper I 100
Paper II 100
Paper III 100
Total: 300
Viva 50
A detailed syllabus for the Main Examination is prescribed in the Clause A (1) of Schedule B
of the Assam Judicial Service Rules, 2005.

viva-voce.
Table 195 – Parameters of Viva for Recruitment as District Judge in Assam
Viva-voce
Mental alertness
Knowledge of law
Balance of judgment
Skills
Attitude
283
937
113525/2018/NM
Ethics
Character
examinations shall be specified in Schedule B of the Assam Judicial Service Rules, 2005. The
following tabulator is used to convert the numerical marks into grades in a seven point scale
with corresponding grade values as follows:
Table 196- System of Grades for Recruitment as District Judge in Assam
O 7
70% and above
A+ 6
65-69
A 5
60-64
B+ 4
55-59
B 3
50-54
C+ 2
45-49
C 1
40-44
F 0
Below 40%
higher degree.
284
938
113525/2018/NM
Manipur
For the purpose of recruitment to the cadre of District Judge the selection is done on the basis
of a Competitive Examination consisting of a Main examination& viva-voce to be held at
such intervals by the High Court from time to time as determined.
Table 197 - Scheme of Recruitment of District Judges in Manipur
Viva-Voce 50
1. The Main Examination shall consist of the following:
in Manipur
Paper II 100
Paper III 100
Total: 300
Viva 50 50
A detailed syllabus for the Main Examination is prescribed in the Clause A (1) of Schedule B
of the Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005.

viva-voce.
285
939
113525/2018/NM
Table 199 – Parameters of Viva for Recruitment as District Judge in Manipur
Other criteria
Mental alertness
Knowledge of law
Balance of judgment
Skills
Attitude
Ethics
Character
examinations shall be specified in Schedule B of the Manipur Judicial Service Rules, 2005.
The following tabulator is used to convert the numerical marks into grades in a seven point
scale with corresponding grade values as follows:
Table 200 – Grading System for Recruitment as District Judge in Manipur
O 7
70% and above
A+ 6
65-69
286
940
113525/2018/NM
A 5
60-64
B+ 4
55-59
B 3
50-54
C+ 2
45-49
C 1
40-44
F 0
Below 40%
higher degree.
Odisha
The syllabus of the main examination is provided in Appendix B of the Rules-
Table 201 - Scheme of Recruitment of District Judges in Odisha
Scheme of recruitment Marks allotted
Main exam 200
Viva-voce 30
287
941
113525/2018/NM
Main exam: The written examination shall be on the following two papers each carrying 100
marks with a duration of 2 hours for each paper:
Table 202 – Scheme of Main Examination for Recruitment as District Judge in Odisha
Paper Marks allotted
Paper I 100 marks
Paper II 100 marks
Total 200 marks

Viva-voce: Interview shall carry 30 marks. Candidates shall be called for interview in the
proportion of 1:10 provided that such candidates have obtained at least 50% of marks in each
of the written papers. The final merit list shall be prepared on the basis of the marks obtained
in the written tests and interview; Provided that a candidate shall not be included in the merit
list unless he secures at least 50% of marks in each of the written papers and a minimum of
40% of marks in interview.
West Bengal
The selection by way of direct recruitment shall be made by the High Court by way of
conducting a written examination and viva voce subject to such guidelines as may be
specified by the High Court from time to time.
Karnataka
The appointment to the cadre of District Judge takes place through Competitive Examination
which consists of the following:
Table 203 - Scheme of Recruitment of District Judges in Karnataka
Viva-Voce 100
288
942
113525/2018/NM
1. A candidate should obtain 50% marks in Main examination to be eligible for viva-voce
and a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe candidate must obtain a minimum of 45%
marks in the Main examination.
in Karnataka
Main Examination Civil Law 150
Criminal Law 150
Viva-Voce 100
Total: 400
2. Selection of candidates is made in order of merit on the basis of aggregate marks

obtained in the Main examination & viva-voce test.
Tamil Nadu
The selection shall be made based on the results of written examination and viva voce i.e, the
selection will be made on the basis of the total marks obtained by the candidates in the
written examination and viva voce taken together subject to the rule of reservation of
appointment.
Table 205 - Scheme of Recruitment of District Judges in Tamil Nadu
Written exam Maximum marks 75%
Viva-voce Maximum marks 25%
289
943
113525/2018/NM
Chhattisgarh
The procedure for direct recruitment to the post of district judge will be prescribed by the
High Court. The direct recruitment will be based on main examination and viva voce and the
details of the same are provided in Schedule III of the Rules. The zone of consideration is
1:3.
Table 206 - Scheme of Recruitment of District Judges in Chhattisgarh
Exam Marks allotted
Main exam 200 marks
Viva 20 marks
Madhya Pradesh
The appointment to the cadre of District Judge takes place through written examination
which consists of the following:
Table 207 - Scheme of Recruitment of District Judges in Madhya Pradesh
Main Examination No particulars
Viva-Voce No particulars
The detailed syllabus for the examination is notified by the High Court at the time of
notification of vacancies.
Maharashtra
For the purpose of recruitment to the cadre of District Judge, the selection is done on the
basis of a Main examination & viva-voce. The medium of Main examination for the post of
District Judge shall be English.
For the purpose of short listing the candidates, the Recruiting Authority may, if necessary
hold preliminary Main examination comprising of multiple choice objective type questions,
which can be scrutinized by computers and call upon the candidates obtaining the cut-off
290
944
113525/2018/NM
marks, as may be fixed by the Recruiting Authority, to appear for final examination,
maintaining the ratio of 1:10 of the available vacancies of the successful candidates.
Table 208 - Scheme of Recruitment of District Judges in Maharashtra
Preliminary Examination If the recruiting authority prefers, it may hold

a preliminary examination.
Viva-Voce 100
The Main Examination shall consist of the following:
Table 209 – Scheme of Main Examination for Recruitment as District Judge in

Maharashtra
Paper II 100
Total: 200
Viva 50
A candidate should obtain 50% marks in Main examination in each paper to be eligible for
viva-voce and candidate belonging to the backward communities must obtain a minimum of
45% marks in each paper of the Main examination to be eligible for viva-voce.
The object of Viva-voce examination under the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008 is
to assess the suitability of the candidate for the cadre by judging the following:
Table 210 – Parameters of Viva for Recruitment as District Judge in Maharashtra
Other criteria
Mental alertness
291
945
113525/2018/NM
Knowledge of law
Balance of judgment
Skills
Attitude
Ethics
Character
The mode of evaluating the performance shall be specified in numerical marks obtained in
Main& viva-voce examinations. On the basis of cumulative marks secured by a candidate a
list in order of merit is prepared.
The scheme of examination of the candidates including Main& viva-voce shall be framed by
the High Court in consultation with the Commission.
Gujarat
The scheme of competitive exam for direct recruitment to the cadre of district judge is as
follows;
Table 211 - Scheme of Recruitment of District Judges in Gujarat
Written examination 200 marks
Viva voce 50 marks
Total 250 marks

A candidate has to secure 50% or more in the written examination to be eligible for viva
(45% for SC/ST) and the minimum qualifying marks in viva is 40%.
292
946
113525/2018/NM
New Delhi
The High court should invite applications by advertisement.
Table 212 - Scheme of Recruitment of District Judges in New Delhi
Exam Marks
Main exam 750
Viva-voce 250
Total 1000
The candidates are eligible to appear in viva voce only if they secure a minimum of 50% in
the written examination (45% in case of reserved category) and the candidates have to secure
a minimum of 50% (45% in case of reserved category) in viva voce to be eligible for
appointment.
Uttar Pradesh
Direct Recruitment is carried out by selection through merit on the basis of a Competitive
Examination. A preliminary examination is held for judging the suitability of the candidates.
After qualifying the preliminary examination the other stages that a candidate has to clear
consist of a Main Examination and a viva voce.
Table 213 – Scheme of Recruitment as District Judges in Uttar Pradesh
Preliminary Examination 100
Viva-Voce 100
1. The preliminary examination shall consist of one paper consisting of 100 marks of two
hours duration from the syllabus prescribed for the written examination in Appendix
‘G’ of the Rules:
293
947
113525/2018/NM
Table 214 – Scheme of Preliminary Examination for Recruitment as District Judge in

Uttar Pradesh
Subjects in preliminary examination Marks allotted
Paper I 100
Total: 100
2. The candidates who qualify1 the Preliminary Examination have to appear in a Written
Examination. The detailed syllabus for the same is prescribed in Appendix ‘G’ of the
Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975.
Table 215 – Scheme of Main Examination for Recruitment as District Judge in Uttar
Pradesh
Subjects in Main examination Marks allotted
Procedure & Evidence 100
Law I- Substantive Law 200
Law II-Procedure & Evidence 200
Law III-Penal, Revenue & Local Laws 200
Total: 800
Viva 100
3. The candidates securing minimum aggregate 45% marks in the written examination
shall be called to appear in the Viva-voce subject to maximum thrice the number of
vacancies category-wise.
1
A candidate shall be treated to be eligible for the Main (written) examination if s/he secures a minimum 45%
marks in the preliminary examination, subject to 20 times of the number of vacancies category-wise i.e.
General, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. See Rule 18(1A) of the Uttar
Pradesh Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1975.
294
948
113525/2018/NM
4. In assessing the merits of a candidate the Selection Committee shall have due regard to
the candidate’s:
Table 216 – Other Criteria for Recruitment as District Judge in Uttar Pradesh
Other Criteria
Professional Ability
Character
Personality
Health.
The candidates securing minimum 40% marks in the Viva-voce shall only be eligible to
be included in the select list. The marks obtained in the Viva-voce will be added to the
marks obtained in the written papers and the candidate's place in the select list will
depend on the aggregate of both.
5. The Selection Committee makes a preliminary selection and submits the record of all
Candidates to the Chief Justice and recommends the names of the Candidates in order
of merit. The Court examines the recommendations of the Committee and having
regard to the number of direct recruits to be taken, prepares a list of selected candidates
in order of merit.
295
949
113525/2018/NM
Conclusion and Recommendations
The degree and depth of variance in different states concerning norms of disposal,
mechanism of ACR and schemes of promotion exist at numerous levels. While these
differences do exist as a matter of reality, there are no compelling reasons for many of those
differences to remain. Differences which are inevitable due to the peculiarity of
circumstances prevailing in the different States can be the exceptions to the general rule of
uniform principles.
Many of the disparities found in the policies of different states are not because of inevitable
necessities. Much of the differences exist because of isolated development of policies without
adequate comparative assessment of methodologies and approaches. This fact is most evident
when one takes into account the number of cases which have been expressly attributed
quantitative weightage under the policies of different states. The great deal of variance in the
incorporation of such entries especially when they relate to laws made by the Parliament and
not individual state legislatures suggests an absence of comparative perusal. While the list of
entries in some states is minimal, the list of entries in other states is much more detailed and
elaborate.
While some aspects of the regulations are definitely not amenable to uniformity across the
states, the same is not simply possible, but desirable in many other aspects. Policies regarding
proportionality of civil and criminal cases to be disposed of by judicial officers in their
overall disposal are best decided keeping in mind the pendency issue in individual states.
Similarly, the policies regarding incentive weightage to promote disposals of certain
categories of cases are also best decided by keeping in mind the litigation and pendency
statistics in a state. However, it would be difficult to argue that the same category of case
should carry different quantitative weightage in different states. It would also be difficult to
accept that barring issues of lack of pendency, the expected quantitative output of judges
should differ substantially from state to state. It would be unfair if a similar rating can be
earned by a judicial officer by doing significantly less than it takes a judicial officer in
another state to earn a similar rating. It is also not unreasonable to hope that it is possible to
have objective assessment methodologies in relation to different criteria of promotion across
the states. While evaluation of judgements as a criterion of promotion in one state is
296
950
113525/2018/NM
happening in a structured manner, it is not fair if the same is happening in another state under
non-institutionalised and ad hoc parameters. Similarly, it is unfair when workload of judicial
officers is proportionately reduced in one state on account of any leave availed by them; the
judicial officers in another state do not get any such concession. It is also quite feasible to
have a common and integrated strategy for promoting disposal of old cases. While additional
weightage is awarded in some states only for disposal of cases which are 7 years old, in some
other states different degrees of additional weightage are awarded for a range of old cases
from 1 year old to 10 years old.
It would be quite possible to develop uniform principles in relation to many matters

pertaining to the performance appraisal and schemes of promotion of judicial officers in
different states. For example, it would be difficult to dispute in all the states, ratings on the
basis of annual assessment of performance should be awarded on the basis of pre-determined
quantitative yardsticks. It would not be unreasonable to expect that there should be pre-
determined assessment methodologies in relation to range of issues on which the performance
of a judicial officer is evaluated.
After examining the official policies of all the identified states for the purposes of this
research, it is submitted that it would be extremely feasible to develop common principles
and policies in the following aspects of performance appraisal and promotion schemes;
Structuring of Norms of Disposal
It is possible to develop a common set of entries structured in a conceptual manner (civil,

criminal etc) which can be used by all the states. At the same time, there can be a list of
entries specific to each state depending on the special or local laws applicable in such states.
There is no reason why Sessions Trial would be further divided into further categories with
different quantitative weightage in some states while all such sub-categories would be
subsumed under one heading and given the same quantitative weightage in another state. It
would be quite possible to prepare a list of entries with quantitative weightage based on laws
commonly applicable in all the states carrying. There is no legitimate reason why a
maintenance petition in one state should carry a different quantitative weightage than another
state as the nature of the litigation is same.
297
951
113525/2018/NM
Quantitative Benchmarks and Ratings Scale
Currently, different states adopt different quantitative benchmarks in relation and different
ratings scale with a variety of nomenclature. For example, even in states which have a 4 point
rating scale, the corresponding entry of ‘Good’ in one state is ‘Average’ in another. The
ranges in which quantitative benchmarks are express also vary. While in one State it would
take 1600 units in a year to earn the highest possible rating, it would take 1200 in another.
These differences are primarily based on the fact that the scale at which entries are given
quantitative weightage differs from state to state. The number of units allotted to a case of
culpable homicide ranges from 1 to 8. With the same scheme of quantitative weightage for
entries in all the states, the prescription of quantitative benchmarks can also be equalised
across the states. It should also be feasible to determine a common rating scale which would
be applicable in all the states.
Policy Regarding Administrative Responsibilities
Currently, the states are dealing with the issue of adjusting administrative responsibilities in
the quantitative output of judicial officers in a variety of ways. It is quite feasible to develop a
common approach in this respect of attaching a certain weightage to administrative positions.
While there can be differences as regards the extent of weightage which is attached to
different administrative positions depending on the nature of position and the quantum of
work, there can be a uniform approach in the methodology of dealing with this issue.
Identifying individual administrative responsibilities (inspection of courts etc) and granting
quantitative weightage for such specific responsibilities may not be a pragmatic idea.
Policy Regarding Non-Decisional Judicial Work
The duties of judicial officers, apart from rendering judgements, comprise of many other
judicial functions. To confine the quantitative assessment of the work done by a judicial
officer to only cases disposed of by him would not be reflective of reality. Thus, other
judicial functions in the nature of examination of witnesses, recording statements, conducting
test identification parade etc. should be given quantitative weightage. It is quite feasible to
conceptualise the range of such judicial functions which would be mostly common across
different states.
298
952
113525/2018/NM
Policy Regarding Disposal of Old Cases
In this respect as well, it is possible to adopt a methodological uniformity. It is possible to

identify the range of old cases (3 years old, 5 years old, 7 years old etc) for which additional
weightage may be granted. It may also be mandated that a certain percentage of the overall
disposal of cases by a judicial officer must consist of oldest cases pending in the docket of a
judicial officer.
Policy Regarding Concession for Leave Availed
While workload of judicial officers in some states is reduced for every leave availed by them,
there exists no express concession of such nature. A balanced approach in this respect can be
developed so as to ensure that the requirement of ensuring a healthy rate of disposal does not
result in a stressful work environment for judicial officers. Thus, leave taken in relation to
certain matters may be adjusted in calculation of the quantitative workload of judicial officers
and not all.
Policy Regarding Concession to Newly Recruited Officers
While the duration for which concession may be granted and the extent of such concession
may depend on the differences in the training period and probation period in different states,
there can be uniformity of approach in relation to institutionally recognise certain relaxation
for newly recruited judicial officers in terms of the quantitative benchmarks applicable to
them.
Policy on Contents of ACR Proforma
While there already exist great degrees of similarities on the category of questions which are
addressed in the ACR proforma of a judicial officer by his reporting officer, the differences
pertain to the details of the questions and also the number of questions. It is quite possible to
develop a common template with a prioritized distribution of questions in relation to the
various aspects of a judicial officer’s performance evaluation.
299
953
113525/2018/NM
Policy on Quantitative Yardstick for Ratings in ACR Proforma
It would be quite reasonable to expect that any kind of rating should be based on a
quantitative yardstick. In the absence of clarity on the quantitative weightage of different
kinds of questions and an overall scheme of ratings based on ranges of quantitative
yardsticks, any practice of awarding ratings becomes highly subjective. How does a person
move from being ‘Good’ to ‘Very Good’? Unless there is a clear and pre-determine
quantitative range in order to determine the applicability of different ratings, it becomes a
fertile ground for exercise of unregulated discretion. Thus, a common rating scale and a
corresponding range of quantitative yardstick may be developed in this respect.
Policy on Assessment Technique for ACR Questions
It would also be preferable to develop clear assessment techniques in relation to questions

being addressed in the ACR proforma of judicial officers. Without any guidelines on the
parameters on which marks should be awarded, there would always be the possibility of
excessive and personalised subjectivity of reporting officers. Thus, it is quite feasible to
develop common assessment techniques in relation to the different parameters reflected in the
ACR proforma. In case there are questions which are not capable of being assessed in an
objective pre-determined manner, such questions should either not form a part of the ACR
report or in the alternative, should have negligible weightage in the overall scheme of
assessment. For example, it is quite feasible to develop certain guidelines on how the
judgements of a judicial officer will be evaluated. The guidelines can specify how marks will
be distributed for various factors such as legal reasoning, narration of facts, clarity in
language etc.
Policy on Promotion Criteria
Across different states, while there is variety in terms of the criteria of promotion in different
cadres, many criteria have been adopted in a majority of the states. In terms of developing
uniformity in criteria, it is felt that the same can be done by distinguishing criteria which are
capable of quantitative measurement and criteria which are not. Criteria such as Evaluation of
Judgements, Evaluation of ACRs and Assessment of Disposal Records can be measured
300
954
113525/2018/NM
quantitatively and examples of the same can be seen in many states as well. On the other
hand, would not be appropriate to list factors such as Integrity, Character, Honesty, Pendency
of Departmental Enquiry or Vigilance Report as a criterion as the same cannot ideally be
expressed quantitatively. It is not possible to determine the integrity percentage of an officer.
Thus, such factors should be conditions of disqualification and not a part of criteria. If an
officer has adverse findings in these respects, he may be disqualified from promotion till the
adverse finding is settled. Once this distinction is institutionalised, it would be feasible to
have certain uniform criteria which can be quantitatively measured.
Policy on Assessment of Promotion Criteria
Once the criteria of promotion consist primarily of factors which can be quantitatively
measured, it would be feasible to develop common assessment methodologies in relation to
different criterion. The Evaluation of ACRs can be quantitatively linked to the ratings
received by the judicial officer in his ACR. For example, he may be entitled to 5 marks for a
rating of Outstanding and 4 marks for a rating of Very Good and so on. Similarly, ratings
received by an officer in relation to his disposal records can also be linked with a relative
scale quantitative weightage.
301

Comparative Report On Judiciary Norms For Selection and Promotion

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comparative Report On Judiciary Norms For Selection and Promotion

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

652

Performance Evaluation and Promotion Schemes of

Prof. Srikrishna Deva Rao

Dr. Rangin Pallav Tripathy

We would like to acknowledge the contributions of the following in preparation and

1. Mr. Owais Hasan Khan

Srikrishna Deva Rao is the Vice-Chancellor of National Law University Odisha

Eluckiaa A is a Research Fellow at National Law University Odisha

INDEX OF TABLES .......................................................................... 15

INDEX OF FIGURES .......................................................................... 25

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION AND PROMOTION SCHEMES OF JUDICIAL OFFICES IN INDIA ........ 28

A COMPARATIVE REPORT .......................................................................... 28

ANALYSIS OF QUANTITATIVE NORMS PRESCRIBED FOR JUDICIAL OFFICERS ..................... 37

A. STRUCTURE OF THE NORMS ....................................................................................... 37

WEST BENGAL ............................................................................................................... 43

TAMIL NADU ................................................................................................................. 44

MADHYA PRADESH ........................................................................................................ 45

NEW DELHI .................................................................................................................... 46

UTTAR PRADESH ............................................................................................................ 47

B. NATURE OF THE NORMS ............................................................................................. 48

I. UNITS SYSTEM ....................................................................................................... 48

II. WORKING DAY SYSTEM......................................................................................... 48

III. CASE-CONVERSION SYSTEM .................................................................................. 49

C. THE RATING SYSTEM ................................................................................................. 50

I. TIMELINE OF QUANTITATIVE BENCHMARK ............................................................ 50

II. RATINGS SCALE ..................................................................................................... 50

III. SINGLE/MULTIPLE RATING SCHEME ...................................................................... 51

WEST BENGAL ............................................................................................................... 55

TAMIL NADU ................................................................................................................. 60

MADHYA PRADESH ........................................................................................................ 66

NEW DELHI .................................................................................................................... 69

UTTAR PRADESH ............................................................................................................ 69

D. POLICY REGARDING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS FOR QUANTITATIVE BENCHMARK .... 70

WEST BENGAL ............................................................................................................... 71

MADHYA PRADESH ........................................................................................................ 73

E. POLICY REGARDING NON-DECISIONAL JUDICIAL WORK ........................................... 75

WEST BENGAL ............................................................................................................... 76

TAMIL NADU ................................................................................................................. 77

MADHYA PRADESH ........................................................................................................ 77

NEW DELHI .................................................................................................................... 78

UTTAR PRADESH ............................................................................................................ 78

F. POLICY REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITIES ......................................... 79

WEST BENGAL ............................................................................................................... 81

TAMIL NADU ................................................................................................................. 82

MADHYA PRADESH ........................................................................................................ 83

NEW DELHI .................................................................................................................... 85

UTTAR PRADESH ............................................................................................................ 86

G. POLICY REGARDING DISPOSAL OF OLD CASES .......................................................... 87

WEST BENGAL ............................................................................................................... 89

TAMIL NADU ................................................................................................................. 89

MADHYA PRADESH ........................................................................................................ 90

NEW DELHI .................................................................................................................... 93

UTTAR PRADESH ............................................................................................................ 93

H. POLICY REGARDING INCENTIVE WEIGHTAGE ............................................................ 94

MADHYA PRADESH ........................................................................................................ 96

NEW DELHI .................................................................................................................... 96

I. POLICY REGARDING CONCESSION FOR LEAVE AVAILED AND REGARDING NEWLY

J. POLICY REGARDING CONCESSION FOR LEAVE AVAILED ............................................ 97

WEST BENGAL ............................................................................................................... 99

TAMIL NADU ................................................................................................................. 99

MADHYA PRADESH ........................................................................................................ 99

MAHARASHTRA ........................................................................................................... 100

GUJARAT ..................................................................................................................... 100