1. Gujarat State Judicial Service Rules, 2005:
   • Rule 5: Mandates that 65% of promotions to the District Judge cadre should be based on “merit-cum-seniority” and passing a suitability test.
   • Merit-Cum-Seniority Principle: This rule ensures that promotions consider both the candidate’s merit and seniority, with merit taking precedence.
2. All India Judges’ Association Case (2002) 4 SCC 247:
   • Established that promotions within the judiciary should follow the merit-cum-seniority principle, requiring candidates to pass a suitability test.
   • Suitability Test Requirements: The test must objectively assess legal knowledge, the quality of judgments, annual confidential reports (ACRs), and overall efficiency.
3. Supreme Court’s Recommendations:
   • Enhancements to Suitability Test: Suggestions include adding a viva voce component, increasing the passing marks, evaluating judgments from the past two years, and incorporating seniority within the test scoring.
   • Comparative Merit Evaluation: While seniority is considered, merit remains the dominant factor in determining eligibility for promotion.

The Supreme Court’s ruling underscores the importance of a balanced approach to judicial promotions, ensuring that merit is prioritised while still recognizing seniority.

Legal Provisions and Framework:

1. Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 – Section 21:
   • Defines “public servant” by listing specific categories such as government officials, judges, military personnel, and those empowered by law.
   • The Court found that employees of a Cooperative Bank, not under government control or funding, do not meet this definition.
2. Representation of the People Act, 1951:
   • Section 26 pertains to appointing polling officers for elections.
   • Section 159(2) specifies which personnel can be requisitioned for election duties, generally excluding employees of institutions not established by a Central, Provincial, or State Act.
3. West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006:
   • The Cooperative Bank involved is registered under this Act but is not established or governed by it.
   • The Court concluded that registration under a state cooperative act does not make the employees public servants under the IPC definition.
4. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023:
   • Section 28 of the BNS offers a modern definition of “public servant,” which mirrors the IPC’s criteria.
   • Similar to the IPC, Section 28 excludes employees of Cooperative Banks that are not controlled or funded by the government.
   • The BNS clarifies that the legal definition of public servants applies mainly to those directly involved in public administration or funded by the government.

This ruling reinforces the principle that the designation of “public servant” is specific and contextually bound, emphasizing that it applies predominantly to individuals engaged in government-funded public administration or services.

1. Constitution of India – Article 311:
   • Provides protection to civil servants, stating they cannot be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that which appointed them.
   • Due Process in Dismissal: Ensures that any dismissal follows a proper inquiry and provides an opportunity for defense.
2. Judicial Conduct and Accountability:
   • Judicial officers are held to high ethical standards, reflecting their role as custodians of justice.
   • Code of Conduct: Requires judges to maintain integrity, impartiality, and propriety both in their professional and personal lives.
3. Misconduct Allegations:
   • Dowry Demands and Influence: Sirohi was accused of demanding dowry and attempting to influence a junior judge, actions deemed incompatible with judicial duties.
   • High Court’s Inquiry: The inquiry validated these allegations, leading to his dismissal.
4. High Court’s Observations:
   • Zero Tolerance for Misconduct: Judicial officers must uphold the sanctity of their office, and any deviation warrants strict consequences.
   • Temple of Justice Analogy: Judges must act as the high priests of justice, ensuring their actions do not tarnish the judiciary’s integrity.

The Allahabad High Court’s decision highlights the judiciary’s commitment to maintaining high standards of conduct and integrity among its officers, reinforcing that any breach of these standards will be dealt with severely.