No Distinction Between “Law Graduates” And “Candidates”: Bombay High Court Upholds Bar On Fresh Law Graduates Applying For Civil Judge (Junior Division) Exam
The Bench said that the Supreme Court’s direction in Bhumika Trust must be read as a whole; dismissed pleas against MPSC corrigendum limiting deemed one-year practice to graduates with degrees before August 22, 2025.
The Bombay High Court has held that the Supreme Court’s direction in Bhumika Trust v. Union of India & Ors. 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1687 making “all law graduates” eligible for Civil Judge (Junior Division) recruitment cannot be read in isolation from the one-year practice requirement. The Court said it was unable to accept that there is any distinction between the words “Law Graduates” and “candidates”.
The Bench dismissed petitions by two fresh law graduates challenging a corrigendum dated October 23, 2026 issued by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission. The Court held that the corrigendum complies with the Supreme Court’s directions, and that any contrary direction would violate them.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sarang V. Kotwal and Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale observed, “Paragraph No.74 of Bhumika Trust case is a complete answer to the arguments advanced by the Petitioners. There it is specifically mentioned that, every candidate seeking to appear for examination for appointment as C.J.J.D. shall possess at least one year of actual practice from the source and certification as laid down in directions 7 and 8 of the Judgment under Review. We unable to accept that there could be distinction in the words ‘Law Graduates’ and ‘candidates’. One year requirement of actual practice is held to be necessary in the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bhumika Trust case”.
“…the directions in paragraph-73(i) takes care of the fact that one year had elapsed since the judgment under Review was pronounced. Thus, those Law Graduates are deemed to have acquired one year of active practice. Direction 73(i) does not stop at mentioning all Law Graduates to become eligible. The direction has to be read as a whole. In the same direction 73(i) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered that one year has elapsed since the judgment under review was pronounced. In that context, it was observed that ‘such candidates’ (emphasis supplied) be deemed to have completed one year of active practice”, the Bench had also noted.
Advocate Uday Warunjikar appeared for the petitioner and Senior Advocate Milind Sathe appeared for the respondent.
Satish Patole and Jinesh Koli obtained law degrees in 2026 and enrolled as advocates on June 20, 2026. They sought permission to apply for the Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class Preliminary Examination under Advertisement No. 013/2026. Koli also sought to quash the corrigendum.
The advertisement was issued on April 30, 2026, and the corrigendum relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment of August 21, 2026 and invited applications, between October 26 and November 9, 2026, from graduates who obtained their degrees before August 22, 2025. Such graduates are deemed to have completed one year of active practice.
The petitioners argued that Paragraph 73 of Bhumika Trust applies to “all law graduates”, while Paragraph 74 governs only advertisements issued on or after April 1, 2027. They said the MPSC had created an artificial class. The State, the MPSC and the High Court administration opposed the pleas.
The Court traced the three-year practice requirement restored in the 2025 All India Judges Association judgment. It noted that Bhumika Trust did not disturb that requirement but divided it into three parts: a deemed first year, a year of Judicial Academy training and a year of Law Clerkship. Direction 73(i) “has to be read as a whole”, it held. The deemed year applied to “such candidates” because one year had elapsed since the judgment under review.
It held that Paragraph 74 was “a complete answer” to the petitioners’ case, since it requires every candidate to possess at least one year of actual practice. The Court noted that the corrigendum required no interference.
Cause Title: Satish Maulyawan Patole v. State of Maharashtra and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:45143-DB)
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocates Uday Warunjikar, with Anirudh Rote and Jinesh J. Koli, Satish Patole appeared in person in WP 15159.
Respondent: Neha Bhide, GP, O.A. Chandurkar, R.A. Salunke and T.N. Bhatia, AGPs, Senior Advocate Milind Sathe, with Rahul Nerlekar and Shailendra Kanetkar, Advocates.