Only chronology mat samajhiye

Culturally, Indians may take their buzurg log a bit too seriously. We seem to take proficiency and wisdom automatically with 'experience'. While there is a correlation between age and expertise, taking it for granted is a dogma we should shake off. Which is why the Supreme Court's refusal to entertain a challenge by a judicial officer in Himachal Pradesh, who complained that juniors had been elevated ahead of him, is welcome. Surely, chronology can't be the only metric for promotion. The petitioner wasn't arguing that selected candidates lacked eligibility, but that officers junior to him had been preferred, and that itself was wrong for 'jumping the queue'. Seniority measures time served. It doesn't measure judgement, leadership, intellectual ability, integrity or temperament.

This principle exposes India's institutional cult of seniority. In hierarchical setups, promotions often follow a conveyor-belt logic where years in service outweigh performance, or problem-solving ability. The same tendency appears in corporate boardrooms, where the 'Sir' often unduly holds his sway over other voices. Whether in government or business, institutions weaken when advancement is treated as a reward for just 'being around'.

None of this is an argument against transparency or accountability. Yet, transparency should illuminate standards, not convert every appointment into litigation by disappointed candidates. Institutions must retain some discretion to assess qualities that cannot be reduced to years served, or objective checklists. The court's message is broader than the case before it: advancement should be earned through 'deservability'. Seniority deserves respect. But institutions that treat it as entitlement eventually sacrifice excellence.