the Court held that the conditions of 3-year continuous practice or passing LL.B degree in one attempt with 70% marks, which were introduced through 2023 amendment, will not apply to the 2022 recruitment.
The Supreme Court today held that the process of the Civil Judge, Junior Division(Entry Level) Recruitment 2022 be carried out in terms of the un-amended recruitment rules. In other words, the Court held that the conditions of 3-year continuous practice or passing LL.B degree in one attempt with 70% marks, which were introduced through 2023 amendment, will not apply to the 2022 recruitment.
The Court allowed an appeal against June 13,2024, order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which directed the weeding out of candidates who had successfully qualified the Preliminary exam for the Civil Judge, Junior Division(Entry Level) Recruitment Exam, 2022 but were found ineligible in fulfilling the Amended Recruitment Rules.
A bench comprising Justice PS Narasimha and Justice AS Chandurkar held: “The June 13 order of the the High Court in exercise of revision jurisdiction is set aside. The appeal is allowed.”
The bench passed the order in an appeal filed by the MP High Court, on its administrative side, against the High Court’s judicial decision. Detailed copy of the judgment is awaited.
The Amended Recruitment Rules were notified on June 23, 2023, amending the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, stated that for the civil judge, the candidates must either have 3 continuous years of practice as an advocate or outstanding law graduates with a brilliant academic career, having “passed all exams in the first attempt” and securing “at least 70 percent marks” in the aggregate for the general and OBC categories. For candidates from SC & ST categories, at least 50% marks in the aggregate is required.
In one set of writ petition(15150/2023), the Amended Recruitment Rules were challenged before the High Court. In another set of petition(1380/2023), the Supreme Court on December 15, 2023, provisionally allowed the candidates to appear preliminary and written exams subject to the outcome of the first set of petition.
The results of the preliminary exams were declared on March 10, 2024, based on unamended rules but subject to the outcome of the High Court’s decision on vires of the rules. The main exams were conducted as per the amended rules. On April 1, 2024, the High Court upheld the validity of the amended rules in writ petition 15150, and the same was refused to be stayed by the Supreme Court on April 26, 2024.
Another set of writ petition was filed before the High Court seeking to quash the results of preliminary exams, and to re-evaluate the marks as per the amended rules and again conduct mains exam. This was dismissed on May 7, 2024 on grounds that since the candidates could not secure cut-off marks in the preliminary marks, they are not eligible.
Against this order, a review was filed. A bench of Acting Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Amar Nath recalled its May 7 order for being erroneous. It clarified that the entire recruitment process since the stage of Preliminary Exams was subject to the outcome of the writ petitions challenging vires of the Amended Rules.
The court has also ordered the re-computation of cut-off marks by applying the ratio of 1:10 under Clause 7(2) of the Advertisement issued. The court clarified that fresh call letters will be issued to those candidates who have secured adequate marks as per the recomputed cut-off after applying the new rules and weeding out the ineligible candidates. Those candidates who clear the prelims for the first time will be invited to appear in fresh Main Examinations. Till these rectifying measures are taken, the recruitment process will be halted.
Last year, in September, the Supreme Court stayed this order, observed: “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 Details: HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR. v. JYOTSNA DOHALIA AND ANR, SLP(C) No. 21353/2024
Appearances: AoR Ashwani Kumar Dubey and Senior Advocate Gopal Shankarnarayanan (Petitioners)
To be updated after the judgment is uploaded.
