The Supreme Court has reserved its judgment on the Madhya Pradesh High Court order restraining civil judge recruitment for candidates without three years of practice. The case also involves review pleas by candidates Jyotsna Dohalia and Varsha Shrivastava challenging the amended eligibility rules.
New Delhi: On August 25, the Supreme Court reserved its judgment on a petition challenging a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had restrained recruitment for the post of civil judge for candidates who did not meet the mandatory three years of practice requirement.
A bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar heard the matter and reserved its verdict. Advocate Ashwani Kumar Dubey, representing the high court, argued that a re-examination would be “unconstitutional, impractical” and could open “floodgates of litigation.”
Earlier, the Supreme Court had allowed the Madhya Pradesh High Court to conduct interviews and declare results of the Civil Judge, Junior Division (Entry Level) Exam 2022.
The top court had also stayed the high court’s order restraining recruitment for the civil judge posts that were conducted without the mandatory three years of practice.
The controversy stems from the amendment of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994.
On June 23, 2023, the rules were amended to make three years of practice compulsory for candidates appearing in the civil judge entry-level examination in the state.
Although the amended rules were upheld by the high court, fresh litigation began after two unselected candidates argued that they were eligible once the new rules were applied and requested a review of the cut-off marks.
While restraining recruitment, the high court directed that successful candidates in the preliminary examination who did not meet the eligibility criteria under the amended rules should be excluded.
The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal filed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the June 13, 2024 order passed by its division bench.
Also Read: “Being Appointed as An Advocate Commissioner is an Honor”: Kerala High Court Stated
The bench had directed the high court to exclude all successful candidates in the preliminary examination held on January 14, 2024, who did not fulfill the eligibility criteria under the amended rules.
In its appeal, the high court contended that the division bench did not properly appreciate that the power to review a well-reasoned judgment is very limited and should be exercised only in case of “a mistake and error apparent on the face of the record.”
The recruitment process had started with an advertisement issued on November 17, 2023, calling for applications from eligible law graduates under the amended recruitment rules. While a challenge to the amended rules was pending, the top court allowed all law graduates to appear in the preliminary examination through an interim order.
Later, a division bench of the high court dismissed petitions challenging the amendment and upheld the amended recruitment rules.
Following this, two candidates, Jyotsna Dohalia and Varsha Shrivastava, claimed that they were eligible under the amended rules and had appeared in the preliminary examination but could not qualify for the main examination. The high court division bench dismissed their plea.
The two petitioners then filed a review petition on May 25, 2024, which was allowed, leading the high court to restrain recruitment for the civil judge posts.
Under the amended Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, three years of practice is now a mandatory requirement for candidates appearing in judicial services examinations at the civil judge level.
However, the amendment provides an exemption for outstanding law graduates who have secured at least 70 percent marks in the general and other backward classes categories, exempting them from the three-year practice requirement.
The high court division bench also noted that the cut-off marks should be re-computed once the remaining candidates meet the eligibility criteria under the amended recruitment rules.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Lawyers Strike
