Bombay High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging District Judge Recruitment Process

The Bombay High Court recently dismissed a writ petition filed by unsuccessful candidates challenging the recruitment process for the cadre of District Judge, affirming that participating in a selection process with full knowledge of the terms precludes a later challenge upon failure.

Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad heard the challenge brought by eight practicing advocates who failed to clear the preliminary examination for the post of District Judge. The petitioners sought to quash the recruitment advertisement and stay the main examination, primarily arguing that the process was governed by rules that had not yet been formally notified in the Official Gazette at the time of the advertisement.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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."

Adherence to Supreme Court Directives

The bench noted that the recruitment process was initiated to align with the mandatory directions issued by the Supreme Court in Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa & Ors ( "(2026) 4 scc 596": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 537). That judgment had quashed existing judicial service rules that were inconsistent with the principles laid down by the Apex Court and directed all High Courts to amend their rules accordingly.

The Court has the following directions:

"The Writ Petition No. 7604 of 2026 is dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs."

Waiver and Acquiescence: Candidates Cannot 'Approbate and Reprobate'

Referring to the precedent in Tajvir Singh Sodhi & Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors, the High Court emphasized that candidates who participate in a selection process without protest are barred from challenging it later simply because the result is not to their liking. The Court found that Clause 2 of the recruitment advertisement had explicitly informed all candidates that the selection would be regulated by the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008 and the amendments approved by the High Court, even if formal notification was pending.

Background:

The dispute arose following an advertisement issued on January 30, 2026, by the Bombay High Court for filling 89 vacancies in the District Judge cadre. The petitioners, who were among 4,831 eligible candidates, appeared for the preliminary exam on May 10, 2026. After the results were declared on May 14, 2026, and they were found unsuccessful, they challenged the legality of the process under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

They argued that conducting the exam based on non-notified rules violated Articles 14, 16, and 233 of the Constitution of India, 1950 and that the new rules were being applied retrospectively. They relied on Harla v. State of Rajasthan ( "AIR 1951 SC 936": 1951 CaseBase(SC) 66), Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, and Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors ( "2024 INSC 847": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 948) to argue that a law only becomes operative upon publication in the Official Gazette.

However, the High Court rejected these arguments, stating that since the earlier rules had already been set aside by Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa & Ors ( "(2026) 4 scc 596": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 537), the recruitment had to proceed based on the new principles. The Court further noted that the formal notification published on June 17, 2026, explicitly stated that the rules applied to the 2025 selection process. Finding no evidence of prejudice or altered syllabus, the Court dismissed the petition.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO.7604 OF 2026
Case Title: Suraj Deepak Mane & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Dr. U.P. Warunjikar, i/b. Shri Sumit S. Kate, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Smt. Neha Bhide, Government Pleader; Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate i/b. Shri Rahul Nerlekar

Source: 2026 CaseBase(BOM) 256