SC Sets Aside MP High Court Order on Civil Judge Exam Re-computation, Says Only Eligible Candidates Considered

The Supreme Court on Thursday set aside the June 2024 order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, which had directed the re-computation of cut-off marks and weeding out of "ineligible candidates" from the main examination for Civil Judge, Junior Division (Entry Level) posts.

A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar observed that no ineligible candidates were selected in either the preliminary or mains examination, as the new recruitment criteria were duly followed. Accordingly, the Court directed the completion of the recruitment process initiated under the advertisement dated 17.11.2023 at the earliest.

"The appellants (High Court) shall conclude the recruitment process initiated pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.11.2023 at the earliest," the Court said.

The appeal was filed by the MP High Court on its administrative side, challenging the judicial side order passed by a different bench of the same High Court.

The apex court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction in the review order dated June 13, 2024, which directed the re-computation. The Court noted that the review petition was filed based on the apprehension of students who had not even cleared the preliminary cut-off, but argued that the cut-off would be different if the amended recruitment rules were applied.

"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 reconsider the very same contention and hold otherwise."

The litigation stemmed from the amendments made to the 1994 Recruitment Rules in June 2023, which mandated that only those candidates who had either three years of continuous practice or had secured 70% marks in LLB in the first attempt without ATKT (for General and OBC categories), and 50% marks (for SC/ST candidates), would be eligible.

A writ petition (15150/2023) was filed before the High Court challenging the Amended Recruitment Rules.

Meanwhile, the High Court issued a recruitment advertisement on November 17, 2023, which also covered some vacancies from 2022. The Supreme Court, in a different case (writ petition 1380/2023), had provisionally allowed candidates who became ineligible under the amended rules to appear for the preliminary and written exams, subject to the outcome of the writ petition.

The preliminary results were declared on March 10, 2024, based on unamended rules but subject to the final outcome of the vires challenge. The main exams, however, were conducted according to the amended rules. On April 1, 2024, the High Court upheld the validity of the amended rules, and the Supreme Court declined to stay this decision on April 26, 2024.

Later, a writ petition was filed by two candidates seeking to quash the preliminary results and to re-evaluate the marks under the amended rules, alleging that ineligible candidates had been permitted to proceed due to the interim order. This petition was dismissed on May 7, 2024, as the candidates did not meet the preliminary cut-off marks. The High Court noted that the two petitioners were merely apprehensive that the cut-off would change after excluding ineligible candidates.

"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."

However, in review, a bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Amar Nath recalled the May 7 order, expressing concern that ineligible candidates could get appointed. The High Court then ordered re-computation of the cut-off by applying the 1:10 ratio under Clause 7(2) of the Advertisement. It directed that fresh call letters be issued to candidates who qualify under the recomputed marks, and a fresh mains exam be held. Until then, the recruitment process was to be halted.

Last year in September, the Supreme Court had stayed this review order, observing: "In our understanding, ineligible candidates cannot be appointed although few ineligible candidates were permitted to appear in the written examination, because of the interim orders. But eventually, only those who satisfy the eligibility norms, are being considered. In the meantime, operation of the impugned order is stayed."

Case Title: High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v. Jyotsna Dohalia and Anr.