Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Review Directing Re‑examination in Madhya Pradesh Judicial Recruitment

A bench of Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar heard an appeal by the Registrar General of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh challenging a Division Bench order which, in review proceedings, recalled an earlier order and directed recomputation of cut‑off marks and a fresh main examination in the recruitment for Civil Judge (Entry Level).

The Court allowed the appeal and held that the High Court exceeded its review jurisdiction by reopening its earlier decision; it set aside the Division Bench order dated 13.06.2024 and dismissed Review Petition No.620 of 2024. The Court found that the issues on which the Division Bench acted had already been considered and rejected when the writ petition was decided on 07.05.2024, and that the remedy, if any, lay in appellate proceedings rather than review. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “4. However, it is argued before this Court that the preparation of the preliminary examination result was in pursuance to the unamended rules as the interim relief was granted and all the candidates were permitted to continue. However, the cut off was 113 marks and it is an admitted position that both the petitioners have not achieved the target. The preliminary examination was only to consider the eligibility of the candidates and if the candidates are eligible they are to be called for appearing in the main examination in the ratio of 1:10. It is nowhere mentioned in the writ petition that how a candidate who cannot even touch the cut off marks can be permitted to appear in the main examination and how the result of the preliminary examination which was prepared by the examination cell is defective. It is only an apprehension of the petitioners that once the validity of the amended rules has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court as well as by the Hon’ble Supreme Court then there will be a scrutiny of the candidates which will be done prior to preparation of the main results and all those candidates who are not having the benchmark in terms of the amended rules they will be thrown out of the final list. Therefore, there is every possibility that the petitioners may have chance now of achieving the benchmark, but the fact remains that the petitioners could not even attain the cut off marks in the preliminary examination... The admitted position being that cut off marks in the eligibility examination could not be obtained by the petitioners, no relief can be extended to them.” The Court further noted the Registrar’s affidavit that “no ineligible candidate though successful in the main written examination would be called for interview.”

Background The dispute arose after Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 was amended on 23.06.2023 to tighten eligibility for Civil Judge (Entry Level). The High Court issued an advertisement on 17.11.2023 for about 199 posts and held a preliminary examination whose result was declared on 10.03.2024. Two respondents scored 112 and 108 respectively, below the cut‑off of 113. The Division Bench of the High Court had earlier upheld the amended Rule 7 on 01.04.2024; a later writ petition by the respondents challenging their preliminary result was dismissed on 07.05.2024.

The respondents filed a review application on 25.05.2024; the Division Bench, exercising review jurisdiction, concluded the earlier order suffered from errors, recalled the 07.05.2024 order, directed exclusion of ineligible candidates, re‑computed cut‑off marks by applying a ratio of 1:10 and ordered a fresh main examination for candidates falling between the earlier and re‑computed cut‑offs. The High Court (Registrar General and Examination Department) appealed to this Court contending that the Division Bench impermissibly used review jurisdiction to alter its prior view and that no ineligible candidate would be appointed in any event. This Court recorded interlocutory orders, stayed the review order pending hearing, and later directed the Registrar to take instructions about undertaking a similar exercise as had been directed in a related matter concerning visually impaired candidates. An affidavit filed by the Registrar stated the recruitment committee would not call any ineligible candidate who had been successful in the main written examination for interview. Concluding that the Division Bench had exceeded the scope of review and that the respondents’ apprehensions had already been considered, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned review order, dismissed the review, and directed the High Court to conclude the recruitment process initiated by the 17.11.2023 advertisement at the earliest. Parties were left to bear their own costs.

Case No.: 2025 INSC 1137 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 21353 of 2024) Case Title: High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Jyotsna Dohalia & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rohit Amit Sthalekar, Advocate