High Court Of Madhya Pradesh vs Jyotsna Dohalia

2025 INSC 1137 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO……………OF 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21353 of 2024)

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH & ANR. APPELLANTS VERSUS JYOTSNA DOHALIA & ANR. RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh through its Registrar

General is aggrieved by the exercise of review jurisdiction by the

Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in proceedings

relating to the recruitment of Judicial Officers under the Madhya

Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service)

Rules, 1994.

Signature Not Verified

3. Facts relevant for considering the challenges as raised are Digitally signed by

that the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2025.09.23 18:33:52 IST Reason:

Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 (for short, hereinafter referred to

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 21353 of 2024 Page 1 of 13 as “the Rules”) govern the field of recruitment of Judicial Officers in

the State. The eligibility criteria for candidates who seek

appointment on the post of Civil Judge (Entry Level) is prescribed

therein. Rule 7 of the said Rules came to be amended on

23.06.2023 as a result of which only such candidate, who had been

in continuous practice as an Advocate for at least three years or had

secured 70 percent or above marks in so far as General Category

and Other Backward Classes Category were concerned and 50

percent or more in respect of candidates belonging to the Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes categories in his/her first attempt

without ATKT was eligible to apply.

4. On 17.11.2023, the High Court issued an advertisement for

recruitment on about 199 posts of Civil Judge (Entry Level). 61 of

these posts pertained to the year 2022. Of the remaining 138 posts,

6 posts were earmarked for Persons with Disabilities, 17 posts were

for General category candidates, 11 posts were for Scheduled Caste

candidates, 109 posts were for Scheduled Tribe candidates and 01

post for the Other Backward Class candidates. The validity of

amended Rule 7 of the Rules was the subject matter of challenge in

various writ petitions filed before the High Court. The issue had

reached this Court and by an order dated 15.12.2023 passed in Writ

Petition (Civil) No.1380 of 2023 (Monica Yadav and Others Vs. High

Court of Madhya Pradesh and Another), all the candidates who were

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 21353 of 2024 Page 2 of 13 eligible in accordance with the Rules prior to their amendment on

23.06.2023 were permitted to participate in the recruitment process.

Such participation was made subject to outcome of the challenge to

the vires of the Rules that was pending before the High Court.

5. The result of the preliminary examination came to be declared

on 10.03.2024. The respondents herein who had participated in the

recruitment process secured 112 marks and 108 marks respectively.

The cut-off marks were 113. The main examination was thereafter

held on 30-31.03.2024. The High Court vide its judgment dated

01.04.2024 decided various writ petitions raising a challenge to the

validity of the Rules of 1994. In so far as the challenge to the

amendment of Rule 7(g) of the Rules of 1994 was concerned, the

same was negatived. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9570 of 2024

(Garima Khare Vs. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Another)

challenging the aforesaid judgment dated 01.04.2024 came to be

dismissed on 26.04.2024. Thereafter, on 07.05.2024, Writ Petition

(Civil) No.12399 of 2024 preferred by the respondents raising

challenge to the results of the preliminary examination came to be

dismissed. The High Court held that both the respondents had

secured marks that were below the cut-off marks and hence they

could not be permitted to participate in the main examination.

6. The respondents thereafter filed a review application on

25.05.2024 seeking recall of the order dated 07.05.2024 passed by

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 21353 of 2024 Page 3 of 13 the High Court dismissing their writ petition. The Division Bench in

exercise of review jurisdiction proceeded to hold that the order dated

07.05.2024 suffered from various errors. In view of the fact that

ineligible candidates were likely to appear in the main examination

and would secure appointment on the post of Civil Judge (Entry

Level), the Division Bench after invoking review jurisdiction recalled

the order passed on 07.05.2024. The High Court was thereafter

directed to exclude all such candidates who had passed the

preliminary examination held on 14.01.2024, who did not satisfy the

eligibility criteria under the Rules of 1994 as amended. A further

direction was issued to re-compute the cut-off marks by applying the

ratio of 1:10. A further direction was also issued that a fresh main

examination be held in respect of those eligible candidates who had

secured marks between the earlier cut-off (113 marks) and the re-

computed cut-off marks. Till the said process was completed, the

High Court was restrained from proceeding ahead with the

recruitment process that had commenced pursuant to the

advertisement dated 17.11.2023. Being aggrieved by the order

dated 13.06.2024, the High Court through its Registrar General and

its Examination Department have come up in appeal.

7. It may be stated that on 23.09.2024 while issuing notice in the

Special Leave Petition, the contention raised on behalf of the

appellants that only those candidates who had satisfied the eligibility

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 21353 of 2024 Page 4 of 13 criteria had been permitted to appear in the examination was

recorded. Thereafter, the operation of the order under review dated

13.06.2024 came to be stayed. It may be noted that when the

present litigation was pending, the challenge to the validity of Rule

6A of the Rules of 1994 in so far as it excluded visually impaired

candidates from seeking appointment in Judicial Service came to be

struck down. Similarly, Rule 7 of the Rules of 1994 to the extent it

was applicable to candidates from the Persons with Disability

category also came to be struck down. A further direction was issued

by this Court permitting the appellants in the said proceedings to

participate in the recruitment process, subject to the observations

made in the judgment dated 03.03.2025 passed In Re:

Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services1. When

the said decision was brought to the notice of this Court on

08.08.2025, the following order was passed in the present

proceedings:

“1. Learned counsel appearing for the parties have brought to our notice the judgment of this Court in the Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, the case arising out of the advertisement dated 17.11.2023 under the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Condition of Service) Rules, 1994.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the High Court will take instructions as to whether a similar exercise can be undertaken in the present case. Incidentally, that is also the direction of the Division Bench of the High Court vide its order dated 13.06.2024.

3. List the matter on 14.08.2025.”

1 2025 INSC 300

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 21353 of 2024 Page 5 of 13

8. Pursuant to the said order, an affidavit has been filed by the

Registrar (I & L) High Court of Madhya Pradesh dated 23.08.2025

stating therein that the matter was placed before the Recruitment

Committee which noted that no ineligible candidate who had been

declared successful in the main written examination would be

considered and that only those candidates who fulfilled the

amended eligibility criteria would be called for interview. Conduct of

a third main written examination would result in various difficulties.

It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the learned counsel for the parties

have been heard.

9. Mr. Ashwani Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the appellants

at the outset submitted that the High Court committed an error in

exercising review jurisdiction and issuing the impugned directions.

According to him, when the writ petition filed by the respondents

herein was decided on 07.05.2024, the validity of Rule 7(g) of the

Rules of 1994 had been upheld. The respondents having not

secured the cut-off marks, there was no basis whatsoever for the

High Court in exercise of review jurisdiction to re-open the

proceedings and direct the appellants to conduct the third main

examination by re-computing the cut-off marks. Merely by stating

that there was an error apparent on the face of the record for

invoking review jurisdiction, the High Court proceeded to re-open

the matter and thereafter take a different view thereby substituting

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 21353 of 2024 Page 6 of 13 its earlier view. Such exercise was not permissible in exercise of

review jurisdiction. In that regard, the learned counsel has placed

reliance on the decisions passed in Northern India Caterers Vs.

Governor of Delhi2 and Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati3. It was

then submitted that the impugned exercise undertaken by the High

Court was on an incorrect premise that ineligible candidates were

likely to be appointed pursuant to the advertisement dated

17.11.2023. It was the specific case of the appellants that no

ineligible candidate would be considered for appointment and hence

the entire basis for the High Court to have undertaken such exercise

in review jurisdiction was impermissible. It was also incorrect to state

that the earlier cut-off marks would be reduced to enable those

candidates, who had scored lesser marks than the cut-off marks to

be considered for appointment. Merely on the ground that a second

main examination was held for physically impaired candidates, the

same could not be the basis for directing a third main examination

to be conducted. Moreover, the candidates who were successful in

the preliminary examination had not been impleaded as parties in

the review petition and the impugned direction causing prejudice to

them was issued in their absence. Reliance was placed on the

decision in Canara Bank Vs. Debasis Das 4 in this regard. It was

2 (1980) 2 SCC 167 3 (2013) 8 SCC 320 4 (2003) 4 SCC 557

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 21353 of 2024 Page 7 of 13 also necessary to bear in mind that the advertisement in question

sought to fill up vacancies of the year 2022, while the impugned

exercise was directed to be undertaken in 2025. It was, thus,

submitted that for the aforesaid reasons the impugned order dated

13.06.2024 passed by the High Court, in exercise of review

jurisdiction, was liable to be set aside.

10. On the other hand, Mr. Rohit Amit Sthalekar, learned counsel

for the respondents supported the impugned order. According to

him, the High Court was justified in exercising review jurisdiction by

issuing a direction to re-compute the cut-off marks and thereafter

hold an additional main examination. It was undisputed that all

candidates irrespective of their eligibility in accordance with the

Rules of 1994, as amended, had been permitted to appear in the

preliminary examination. As a result of participation of such

candidates, the cut-off marks had been determined. The

respondents though eligible for appointment were being deprived of

an opportunity to appear in the main examination only on the ground

that they did not obtain the requisite cut-off marks. After the names

of the ineligible candidates were deleted, the cut-off marks would be

lowered down, thus, entitling the respondents of having an

opportunity to appear in the main examination. The appellants

proceeded on a misconception that the cut-off marks were

sacrosanct and irreversible. There was a distinction between the

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 21353 of 2024 Page 8 of 13 eligibility criteria and prescription of cut-off marks. The fact that 194

candidates were found eligible after re-computation of the cut-off

marks indicated the error that was committed by the High Court in

its order dated 07.05.2024. Since, the High Court had conducted a

second main examination for physically impaired candidates, there

was no reason for not conducting another main examination for

candidates who were otherwise eligible and entitled to appear for

such examination on the basis of the re-computed cut-off marks. It

was, thus, submitted that the High Court did not commit any error in

exercising review jurisdiction. Hence, no interference with the

impugned order was called for and the appeal was liable to be

dismissed.

11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

We have perused the documentary material on record and also

considered the various decisions relied upon by the learned counsel

for the parties. In our view, the impugned order dated 13.06.2024

passed by the High Court, in exercise of review jurisdiction, is liable

to be set-aside on the ground that the High Court exceeded its

jurisdiction while reviewing the earlier order dated 07.05.2024. It is

seen that in the writ petition preferred by the respondents before the

High Court, a challenge was raised by them to the results of the

preliminary examination declared on 10.03.2024. The respondents

also prayed that the marks be re-evaluated in accordance with the

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 21353 of 2024 Page 9 of 13 new eligibility criteria and the results be revised accordingly. When

the said writ petition was decided on 07.05.2024, the validity of Rule

7 of the Rules of 1994 had been upheld by the High Court in another

batch of writ petitions decided on 01.04.2024. The respondents

contended before the High Court that as the validity of the amended

Rules had been upheld, there was a likelihood of scrutiny of all

candidates before publishing the final list. As a result, it was likely

that the respondents, who had not secured the cut-off marks would

have an opportunity of achieving the benchmark after re-

computation of the cut-off marks. The High Court while dealing with

the said submission held in paragraph No.4 of its judgment dated

07.05.2024, as under:-

“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

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 21353 of 2024 Page 10 of 13 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 sorting of the candidates after the main examination is over will not create any possibility that the candidates who have not even attained the benchmark in the preliminary examination, their names can be considered in the preliminary examination list or in the main list. In absence of any explanation that could be given by the petitioners to the aforesaid, no benefit could be extended to them. Even otherwise all the candidates were permitted to appear in the examination in terms of the interim order granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court but once the validity of the amended rules has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.9570 of 2024 no benefit can be extended to the petitioners. 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.” (Emphasis supplied)

12. From the aforesaid discussion, it can be seen that the

contention raised by the respondents as regards re-computation of

cut-off marks was only on the basis of their apprehension. The High

Court found that excluding ineligible candidates would not result in

reducing the cut-off marks and there was no likelihood of the

respondents being considered for the final examination. The

respondents could not furnish any explanation in that regard. Thus,

the contention raised by the respondents based on a likelihood of

reduction in the cut-off marks having been turned down, it was not

open for the High Court, in exercise of review jurisdiction, to re-

consider the very same contention and hold otherwise. Such

exercise could have been undertaken only in exercise of appellate

jurisdiction and not in exercise of review jurisdiction. A perusal of the

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 21353 of 2024 Page 11 of 13 impugned order indicates that the High Court has proceeded on the

premise that it was necessary to weed out ineligible candidates, who

had provisionally appeared in the preliminary examination by

assuming that there was a likelihood of ineligible candidates

securing appointment.

13. We find that all these contentions raised by the respondents

had been duly considered by the High Court, when it dismissed their

writ petition on 07.05.2024. In the facts of the present case, there

was no occasion to invoke review jurisdiction and direct holding of a

fresh main examination, more so, when the advertisement had been

issued on 17.11.2023 and the recruitment process continued till

June 2024. The conduct of a second main examination in so far as

physically impaired candidates were concerned, would not enure to

the benefit of the respondents since the scope of those

examinations was distinct and it was restricted only for physically

impaired candidates. Even on this ground review jurisdiction could

not have been invoked.

14. The affidavit filed by the Registrar (I&L) pursuant to the order

passed by this Court on 08.08.2025 in the present Special Leave

Petition indicates in clear terms that no ineligible candidate though

successful in the main written examination would be called for

interview. Thus, the apprehension expressed by the respondents,

though unfounded, stands answered.

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 21353 of 2024 Page 12 of 13

15. For all these reasons, the impugned order dated 13.06.2024

passed by the High Court in exercise of review jurisdiction is set

aside. Review Petition No.620 of 2024 filed by the respondents

stands dismissed. The appellants shall conclude the recruitment

process initiated pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.11.2023 at

the earliest. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms, leaving

the parties to bear their own costs.

…………………………………………..J. [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]

…..………………………..J. [ATUL S. CHANDURKAR]

NEW DELHI, SEPTEMBER 23, 2025.

Civil Appeal arising out of SLP(Civil) No. 21353 of 2024 Page 13 of 13