New Delhi: The Supreme Court will hear on Monday, May 8, a petition challenging the promotion of 68 judicial officers in Gujarat to district judges, including that of the magistrate who convicted Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for criminal defamation. The petitioners have alleged that the state government violated the merit-cum-seniority principle when promoting these judges.Judicial magistrate Harish Hasmukhbhai Varma, who found Gandhi guilty and sentenced him to two years of simple imprisonment, was promoted to an additional judge of the Rajkot district court. The appointments were made based on a selection list issued by the Gujarat high court on March 10.According to the Indian Express, the petition opposing the promotions was filed by two senior judicial officers, Ravikumar Maheta, under secretary in the legal department of the Gujarat government, and Sachin Prataprai Mehta, assistant director at the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority. The plea was moved on March 28, saying the appointment should be set aside because 65% of posts of district judges should be filled on the basis of merit-cum-seniority and passing a suitability test.The petitioners alleged that they got higher marks than many of the selected candidates. This, they said, shows that the principle of merit-cum-seniority was given “a go-by” and instead, appointments were being made “on the basis of seniority-cum-merit”.Advocate Purvish Malkan, on behalf of the petitioners, said the high court should be directed to prepare a fresh list.On April 28, the Supreme Court came down on both the Gujarat government and high court for notifying the promotion on April 18, even as the matter was sub-judice. This movie prima facie appears to be “overreaching the court’s process”, the top court said. The bench of Justices M.R. Shah and J.B. Pardiwala sought an explanation from the secretary of the state government on “the extraordinary urgency shown in the matter in giving promotion and issuing the notification dated 18.04.2023 granting the promotion, subject to the ultimate outcome of the proceedings.”“It is very unfortunate that despite the fact that the respondents, more particularly, the state government, was aware of the present proceedings and the fact that in the present proceedings, this court made the notice returnable on April 28, 2023, the state has issued the promotion order dated April 18, 2023, after the receipt of the notice issued by this court in the present proceedings,” the order said.The court also sought a reply from the HC specifically on whether the promotions to the post in question are to be given on the basis of seniority-cum-merit or merit-cum-seniority and to place on record the entire merit list.