Two law graduates who enrolled as advocates on June 20, 2026 have lost their challenge to Maharashtra’s judicial exam cutoff. The Bombay High Court has held that the Supreme Court’s transitional relaxation, which speaks of “all law graduates”, has to be read together with its requirement of prior legal experience, so a degree obtained before August 22, 2025 is required.
Mumbai: The judicial exam cutoff set by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission has survived challenge, with the Bombay High Court dismissing two petitions that sought entry into the Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class recruitment process [Satish Maulyawan Patole v. State of Maharashtra and others, with Jinesh Jitendra Koli v. State of Maharashtra and others].
Justices Sarang V. Kotwal and Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale delivered the common judgment on November 5, 2026, upholding the Commission’s October 23 corrigendum. Maharashtra’s cutoff is that graduates must have obtained their law degree before August 22, 2025 to claim deemed practice under the transitional judicial-recruitment scheme; both petitioners were enrolled as advocates on June 20, 2026, and neither got the relief sought.
The verdict on the corrigendum
In paragraph 31, the Court concluded that the Commission had issued the corrigendum in compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions. Both petitions were dismissed and the rule discharged. For this recruitment process, the challenged graduation cutoff stays, and the two petitioners did not obtain permission to apply under the relaxation.
What the corrigendum said
The challenge concerned the Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class Preliminary Examination–2024, advertised through Advertisement No. 013/2026. The corrigendum referred to the Supreme Court’s August 21, 2026 judgment in Bhumika Trust v. Union of India and invited otherwise eligible graduates with a law degree obtained before August 22, 2025 to apply between October 26 and November 9, 2026.
Paragraphs 6 and 7 record that the corrigendum treated these graduates, and other eligible candidates who had not completed three years of actual practice, as having completed one year of active practice. The age conditions were not challenged in these petitions.
The graduates’ reading of paragraph 73
The petitioners relied on paragraph 73 of Bhumika Trust, which governs recruitment notifications issued during the transitional period up to March 31, 2027. In their view, its reference to all law graduates took in those graduating after August 22, 2025, and the Commission had no business dividing graduates by the date of their degree.
They also set paragraph 73’s reference to law graduates against paragraph 74’s reference to candidates, the latter expressly governing notifications issued on or after April 1, 2027. Counsel for the High Court administration, supported by the Commission, argued that the review judgment kept the underlying requirement of experience and that the corrigendum complied with it.
Reading the direction as a whole
The High Court looked at the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s revised scheme and did not treat the opening words of paragraph 73(i) as a standalone exemption. It noted that the Supreme Court had recognised the value of prior exposure to courts while changing how the three-year experience requirement would be met.
Paragraphs 25 to 27 describe three components: one year of prior experience, which under the transitional reasoning could include practice, judicial clerkship or work in a law firm; one year of structured training at a State Judicial Academy; and a further year of supervised law clerkship. The latter two were treated as equivalent periods for the experience requirement.
According to paragraph 29, the deeming provision was tied to the year that had passed since the earlier judgment restoring the practice requirement. The Bench held that the direction had to be read as a whole, relied on paragraph 74’s express requirement of actual practice, and rejected the proposed distinction between law graduates and candidates.
Cases: Satish Maulyawan Patole v. State of Maharashtra and others, W.P. No. 15159/2026; Jinesh Jitendra Koli v. State of Maharashtra and others, W.P. No. 15160/2026
Court: Bombay High Court, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Bench: Justices Sarang V. Kotwal and Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale
Decision and upload date: November 5, 2026
Neutral citation of linked copy: 2026:BHC-AS:45144-DB
Outcome: Both writ petitions dismissed; challenged corrigendum upheld.