Figures Indicated In Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules Can’t Govern Recruitment Every Year: Bombay HC Dismisses Plea Challenging District Judge Recruitment Process Through Nomination
The State Judges Association through the Petition challenged the advertisements issued in the years 2023 & 2024 pertaining to the recruitment process of District Judges through Nomination.

The Bombay High Court dismissed a Petition filed by the State Judges Association challenging the recruitment process of District Judges through Nomination and clarified that the figures as indicated in the Schedule to the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008 cannot govern the process of recruitment every year since the actual working strength of Judges would not be static.
The Association through the Petition challenged the advertisements issued in the years 2023 & 2024 pertaining to the recruitment process of District Judges through Nomination.
The Division Bench comprising Justice A.S. Chandurkar and Justice Rajesh S. Patil said, “The Association has not demonstrated that the calculation of these posts as indicated in paragraphs 5 to 7 of the affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent is erroneous.”
Advocate Rahul S. Kadam represented the Petitioner while Assistant Government Pleader Aditya R. Deolekar represented the Respondents.
Facts
The petitioner is an Association comprising members of judicial service in the State of Maharashtra. The Association has been formed with the object of seeking welfare and improving the service conditions of Judges working in various Courts in the State of Maharashtra. The Association had challenged the advertisement regarding the selection process for the years 2022 & 2023.
Arguments
Referring to Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008, the Peititoner’s Counsel submitted that 25% of the District Judges are to be recruited through Nomination. The remaining 75% of posts are required to be filled in through regular promotion for 65% of the said posts and accelerated promotion for 10% from amongst serving Senior Civil Judges. Since the posts advertised exceeded the 25% quota as permissible, the advertisements being in breach of Rule 5 of the Rules of 2008 were liable to be set aside.
It was the case of the Respondent that the provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules of 2008 had not been breached. The quota for recruiting District Judges from the sources prescribed under Rule 5 of the Rules of 2008 was calculated based on the actual strength of the cadre and the same did not cause any prejudice to any quota. Since the posts advertised were in accordance with the cadre strength, there was no merit in the challenge raised to the aforesaid advertisements.
Reasoning
The Bench referred to a Resolution of 2017, whereby the Permanent Selection and Appointment Committee of the High Court had resolved that to determine the quota prescribed under Rule 5, the actual working strength of Judges in that cadre as on 31st March of every year had to be taken into consideration.
“Since the actual working strength of Judges would not be static every year, the figures as indicated in the Schedule to the Rules of 2008 cannot govern the process of recruitment every year. In fact, the note appended to the Schedule clearly states that the number of posts in each cadre would change from time to time depending upon the increase and decrease of the number of posts and the exigency of the situation”, the Bench said.
The Bench further clarified that it was on this basis that the 4 posts were sought to be filled in under the 25% quota under the 2023 advertisement and under the 2024 advertisement 19 vacancies under that quota were sought to be filled in.
“It therefore cannot be said that there has been any attempt to fill in the 25% posts through Nomination is in excess of what is permissible under the Rules of 2008. The submission urged on behalf of the Association that the posts in excess would thus amount to “Ex-Cadre posts” cannot be accepted”, the Bench held while dismissing the Petition.
Cause Title: Maharashtra State Judges Association v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-AS:2259-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Rahul S. Kadam, Shardul R. Diwan, Vedant P. Babar, Ditya S. Aklekar
Respondents: Assistant Government Pleader Aditya R. Deolekar, Senior Advocate Dr. Milind Sathe, Advocate Rahul Nerlekar