2023 civil judge recruitment: Supreme Court sets aside MP High Court order calling for fresh exam

The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside a June 2024 Madhya Pradesh High Court Division Bench order which had directed the exclusion of ineligible candidates from the Civil Judge (Entry Level) recruitment process and ordered a recomputation of cut-off marks followed by a fresh main examination [High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Anr v. Jyotsna Dohalia & Anr]..In doing so, a Bench of Justices PS Narasimha and AS Chandurkar directed the High Court to conclude the recruitment process for civil judges initiated under the November 17, 2023 advertisement “at the earliest.”The Bench observed that the Division Bench of High Court had exceeded its review jurisdiction by re-opening issues already settled when it had earlier dismissed the writ petition filed by two unsuccessful candidates."In the facts of the present case, there was no occasion to invoke review jurisdiction and direct holding of a fresh main examination, more so, when the advertisement had been issued on 17.11.2023 and the recruitment process continued till June 2024. The conduct of a second main examination in so far as physically impaired candidates were concerned, would not enure to the benefit of the respondents since the scope of those examinations was distinct and it was restricted only for physically impaired candidates. Even on this ground review jurisdiction could not have been invoked," the order stated. .The case stems from the 2023 recruitment process for 199 posts of Civil Judge (Entry Level) under the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994.On June 23, 2023, Rule 7 of the Rules was amended, tightening the eligibility criteria. Candidates were required to have either three years of continuous practice as an advocate or to have secured at least 70% marks in the first attempt of law graduation (for General and Other Backward Classes) and 50% or more marks (for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes).This amendment was challenged before the High Court. In December 2023, the Supreme Court allowed all candidates - those eligible under either the old or amended rules - to participate provisionally in the recruitment process, subject to the outcome of the challenge.The preliminary examination results were declared in March 2024, with the cut-off fixed at 113 marks. The two respondent-candidates, having scored 112 and 108, fell short. They filed a writ petition challenging their exclusion from the main examination, but the same was dismissed by the High Court in May 2024.Meanwhile, on April 1, 2024, the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the validity of amended Rule 7(g).However, in June 2024, the High Court, while deciding a review petition, recalled its earlier order. It directed exclusion of the ineligible candidates, recomputation of the cut-off and a fresh main examination for candidates within the recomputed range.Interestingly, the Registrar General and Examination Department of the High Court moved the Supreme Court against this verdict..The Supreme Court noted that in its May 2024 judgment, the High Court had already rejected the plea for recomputation of cut-off marks, holding that candidates who did not attain the prescribed cut-off could not be granted relief based on mere apprehensions.By re-opening this very issue in review, the Division Bench had in effect substituted its earlier view, which was impermissible. Such an exercise, the Court clarified, could only be undertaken in appellate jurisdiction.The Court added that the respondents’ plea for re-computation of cut-off marks was based merely on apprehensions, since exclusion of ineligible candidates would not reduce the cut-off or improve their chances, and they failed to offer any explanation to the contrary."The respondents could not furnish any explanation in that regard. Thus, the contention raised by the respondents based on a likelihood of reduction in the cut-off marks having been turned down, it was not open for the High Court, in exercise of review jurisdiction, to reconsider the very same contention and hold otherwise. Such exercise could have been undertaken only in exercise of appellate jurisdiction and not in exercise of review jurisdiction."Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the June 2024 review order of the High Court. .Advocate R Ashwani Kumar Dubey appeared for the appellants, while Advocate Rohit Amit Sthalekar represented the respondents..[Read Order]