MP High Court Exceeded Its Jurisdiction While Reviewing Earlier Order: Supreme Court Directs Earliest Conclusion Of Civil Judge Recruitment Process

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, through its Registrar General, approached the Apex Court, challenging the exercise of review jurisdiction by the Division Bench of the High Court in proceedings relating to the recruitment of Judicial Officers under the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994.

The Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar stated, “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.”

“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”, it added.

Factual Background

In the year 2023, the High Court issued an advertisement for recruitment of 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 for General category candidates, 11 for Scheduled Caste candidates, 109 for Scheduled Tribe candidates and 1 post for the Other Backward Class candidates. The Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, govern the field of recruitment of Judicial Officers in the State. The eligibility criteria for candidates who seek appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Entry Level) are prescribed therein. Rule 7 of the said Rules came to be amended on June 23, 2023. The validity of amended Rule 7 of the Rules was the subject matter of challenge in various writ petitions filed before the High Court.

All the candidates who were eligible in accordance with the Rules before their amendment on June 23, 2023, were permitted to participate in the recruitment process. Such participation was made subject to the outcome of the challenge to the vires of the Rules that was pending before the High Court. Insofar as the challenge to the amendment of Rule 7(g) of the Rules of 1994 was concerned, the same was negatived. 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.

A review petition came to be filed and a 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 recomputed 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. Being aggrieved, the High Court, through its Registrar General and its Examination Department, came up in appeal before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench was of the view that the impugned order passed by the High Court, in exercise of review jurisdiction, was liable to be set aside on the ground that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction while reviewing the earlier order. It was 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.

“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 reconsider 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 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”, it added.

It was further noticed that the conduct of a second main examination, in so far as physically impaired candidates were concerned, would not have enured to the benefit of the respondents since the scope of those examinations was distinct and it was restricted only for physically impaired candidates. “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”, it held.

Thus, the Bench set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court in exercise of review jurisdiction and ordered that the appellants shall conclude the recruitment process initiated pursuant to the advertisement dated November 17, 2023 at the earliest.

Cause Title: High Court of Madhya Pradesh v. Jyotsna Dohalia (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1137)

Click here to read/download Judgment