Hearing a challenge by two advocates to the Gujarat High Court’s District Judge recruitment, in which none of the 113 advertised vacancies under the direct recruitment quota was filled, the Supreme Court has orally indicated that it is more interested in formulating an initiative to reform the entire judicial examination process, and has kept the matter for hearing before a Bench that includes the Chief Justice of India.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday said that it wishes to take an initiative to reform the entire judicial recruitment examination process, while hearing a writ petition challenging the Gujarat High Court’s recruitment of District Judges under the 25 per cent direct recruitment quota for the recruitment year 2024-25 [Mansi Jain and Another v. Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat].
A Bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana heard the petition, being W.P. (C) No. 925 of 2026, on October 1, 2026. Notice in the matter was issued last month.
Sealed cover records and the Bench’s remarks
Advocate Prashant Bhushan, for the petitioners, told the Court that the records of the recruitment, including the marks awarded, had now been placed before it in a sealed cover. He added that, under the recruitment rules, a report on the candidate’s character has to be obtained from the High Court to which the candidate belongs, and urged the Court to examine whether such reports were obtained in these cases.
Justice Bagchi responded that the Bench’s interest went beyond the individual claims:
“We are more interested in formulating some initiative for reforming the entire examination process.”
The Court kept the matter to be heard when the Chief Justice of India is also sitting in the Bench combination, and recorded in its order:
“The registrar is present with the report in sealed cover. Report in sealed cover is taken on record.”
The presence of the Registrar was dispensed with.
Background of the case
The petition challenges the Gujarat High Court’s final result of July 9, 2026 and seeks to set it aside insofar as it declares the petitioners unsuccessful, along with directions for a fresh, fair and transparent evaluation. The High Court had advertised 113 District Judge vacancies under the 25 per cent direct recruitment quota on July 25, 2025. The process comprised a preliminary examination, a Gujarati language test, a main written examination and a viva voce. Of the 729 candidates who appeared in the preliminary examination, only 31 qualified for the main examination, and the two petitioners were the only candidates who qualified for the viva voce under the quota.
According to the petition, after the viva voce held on April 30, 2026, the High Court declared the result on July 9, 2026 without recommending any candidate, leaving all 113 vacancies unfilled. It states that Mansi Jain secured 100.5 of 200 marks in the written examination but 9.6 of 50 in the viva voce, and that Vishal Baljit Singh secured 110.5 of 200 in the written examination and 10 of 50 in the viva voce, while candidates needed 20 of 50 in the interview to qualify.
The petitioners’ contentions
The petitioners point out that over the last seven years only one appointment has been made under the 25 per cent direct recruitment quota, despite five recruitment exercises and 264 notified vacancies: 26 in 2019, 34 in 2020, 34 in 2022, 57 in 2023 and 113 in 2024-25. They allege inconsistencies in the interview process and argue that the brief interview made the assessment inadequate and raises concerns about the fairness and reliability of the evaluation. They further argue that the selection gave overriding importance to the viva voce, effectively nullifying their performance in the written examination, and rely on the Constitution Bench judgment in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi to contend that oral interviews are inherently subjective and should not carry disproportionate weight in public recruitment. These are the petitioners’ allegations and have not been adjudicated.
Along with the petition, they have sought interim relief staying the operation of the July 9 result and restraining the High Court from starting a fresh recruitment process or filling the 113 notified vacancies while the case is pending.
Why the hearing matters
The Court’s remarks suggest that the case may be used to consider changes in how judicial recruitment examinations are conducted, going beyond the two petitioners. The sealed cover records have been taken on record, but the Court has not ruled on the legality of the result or on the interim relief sought.
Case Title: Mansi Jain and Another v. Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat [W.P. (C) No. 925 of 2026]
Bench: Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana, Supreme Court of India
Date of Hearing: October 1, 2026
Appearances: Advocate Prashant Bhushan for the petitioners