Cannot Challenge The Very Process In Which They Competed: Bombay HC Dismisses 8 Advocates' Challenge To District Judge Recruitment After Failing In Preliminary Exam
The Bench noted that the challenge to Maharashtra Judicial Service District Judge recruitment was clearly hit by principles of waiver and acquiescence.
The Bombay High Court has dismissed a challenge filed by eight practising advocates who failed the preliminary examination for recruitment to the cadre of District Judge under the Maharashtra Judicial Service, holding that their challenge to the recruitment process was clearly hit by the principles of waiver and acquiescence. The Court held that having consciously accepted the terms of the advertisement and participated in the selection process without demur, the advocates cannot now challenge the very process in which they competed.
The Court further held that the recruitment process conducted under amendments approved by the Full House of the High Court but not yet formally notified in the Official Gazette was not rendered invalid, since the advertisement itself expressly disclosed that the approved amendments would govern the selection and the earlier inconsistent rules had already ceased to operate having been quashed by the Constitution Bench in Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa (2026) 4 SCC 596.
The formal Gazette notification, the Court held, merely completed the statutory process of bringing the Rules in conformity with the Constitution Bench's binding directions and could not be treated as altering the governing norms to the prejudice of candidates.
Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad observed, “…every applicant was expressly informed that the approved amendments would govern the selection process, notwithstanding that the formal publication of the notification by the State Government was awaited. The Petitioners admittedly submitted their applications with full knowledge of this condition. They neither sought a copy of the approved amendments, nor questioned the advertisement or the subsequent addendum dated 26th March, 2026 before participating in the preliminary examination. 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”.
“…The Petitioners knowingly participated in the process without any objection and have approached this Court only after failing in the preliminary examination. The challenge is clearly hit by the principles of waiver and acquiescence and is, in any event, devoid of merit”, the Bench further noted.
Advocate Dr. U.P. Warunjikar appeared for the petitioners and Senior Advocate Dr. Milind Sathe appeared for the respondent.
The petitioners, eight practising advocates, had appeared in the preliminary examination conducted by the Bombay High Court for recruitment to 89 vacancies in the cadre of District Judge by nomination under the Maharashtra Judicial Service.
The advertisement dated January 30, 2026 expressly stated that the selection process would be governed by the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008 along with amendments approved by the High Court which were yet to be notified.
The petitioners submitted applications, appeared in the preliminary examination on May 10, 2026 and were declared unsuccessful. The amended rules were formally notified on June 17, 2026. The petitioners thereafter sought to challenge the entire recruitment process and stay the main written examination scheduled for and June 27-28, 2026.
The Court rejected all contentions. The judgments in Harla v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1951 SC 936 and Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India SLP (C) No. 1979 of 2019 were distinguished on facts, the Court holding that unlike those cases, the petitioners here had express notice through the advertisement itself of the governing rules. No material was placed on record to demonstrate that the syllabus was altered after the advertisement or that any moderation was carried out to the petitioners' prejudice. The challenge founded on conjecture without factual foundation could not furnish ground for interfering with an ongoing recruitment process.
“There is no material to demonstrate that the selection criteria or the rules of the game were altered after commencement of the recruitment process. Nor have the Petitioners established that they suffered any prejudice by reason of the subsequent notification of the amended Rules, as they were made fully aware in the advertisement that the amended rules have been made applicable. None of the Petitioners chose to challenge the advertisement. They filed their applications in response to the advertisement, competed in the recruitment process. After they could not even pass the Preliminary exams, that they have approached the High Court”, the Bench said.
The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. The main written examination proceeded as scheduled.
Cause Title: Suraj Deepak Mane and Others v. State Of Maharashtra and Another Writ Petition No.7604 Of 2026
Appearances:
Petitioners: Dr. U.P. Warunjikar, Sumit S. Kate, Advocates.
Respondents: Neha Bhide, Government Pleader, Dr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate, Rahul Nerlekar, Advocate.