The Bombay High Court, on June 25, dismissed a petition seeking to halt the recruitment process for 89 district judges in Maharashtra. This decision clears the way for the main written examination scheduled for June 27 and 28, as detailed in the case Suraj Mane & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
The petition was lodged by eight advocates who had participated in the preliminary examination on May 10, 2026, but did not achieve the qualifying marks. They challenged the advertisement and preliminary results announced on May 14 and requested a stay on the forthcoming main written examination.
The crux of their argument revolved around the recruitment being based on amendments to the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008, which were not officially notified at the time the advertisement was issued. However, a Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad dismissed these claims.
Judicial Findings
The Court found that the recruitment process was consistent with the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench decision in Rejanish KV v. K Deepa & Ors., which had invalidated any existing rules that contradicted its judgment. The Bench noted that the advertisement had explicitly informed candidates that the recruitment would be governed by the amended Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008, despite their formal notification occurring later.
The amendments were approved by the full court of the Bombay High Court in January 2026, following the Supreme Court’s decision in Rejanish KV. The petitioners contended that the recruitment should adhere to the rules in place on January 30, when the advertisement was issued. They pointed out that the advertisement stated the amendments were pending notification, arguing that unnotified rules should not govern the recruitment as it would breach constitutional grounds.
More Read
Court’s Reasoning
The Court countered that the rules prior to amendment were nullified by the Rejanish KV ruling due to inconsistencies with the judgment. It emphasized that the formal notification on June 17, 2026, merely completed the statutory process to align the rules with the Supreme Court’s binding directions.
“We find no merit in the submission that the approved amendments could not have been acted upon until their publication in the Official Gazette. The earlier inconsistent rules had ceased to operate, having been quashed by the pronouncement in Rejanish KV. The notification dated 17th June, 2026 merely completed the formal statutory process of bringing the Rules in conformity with the binding directions of the Constitution Bench. In these peculiar facts, the recruitment process cannot be invalidated merely because the formal notification followed the issuance of the advertisement, particularly when the advertisement itself expressly disclosed the basis on which the recruitment was to be conducted,” the Court held.
Resolution and Conclusion
The Court observed that the petitioners did not request a copy of the approved amendments or challenge the advertisement before taking the preliminary exam. “Having consciously accepted the terms of the advertisement, having participated in the selection process without demur and having failed in the examination, the Petitioners cannot now seek to challenge the very process in which they have competed,” the Court ruled.
Ultimately, the Court concluded that the petitioners did not demonstrate any arbitrariness, illegality, or constitutional violations in the recruitment process, leading to the dismissal of the petition. This decision permits the district judge recruitment process to continue as planned.
Advocates Uday Warunjikar and Sumit S. Kate represented the petitioner-lawyers, while Government pleaders Neha Bhide, S.D. Vyas, and G.R. Raghuwanshi represented the State of Maharashtra. Advocate General Milind Sathe, along with advocate Rahul Nerlekar, appeared for the Registrar General of the High Court.
