Bombay High Court dismisses plea alleging excess nomination quota in district judge recruitment

The Bombay High Court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by the Maharashtra State Judges Association, which challenged advertisements issued in 2023 and 2024 for the recruitment of district judges [Maharashtra State Judges Association v State of Maharashtra]..The Association, representing judicial officers across the State, had contested the advertisements issued on September 30, 2023, and January 9, 2024, for the recruitment processes of 2022 and 2023, respectively. The petitioner argued that these advertisements violated the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008, by advertising nomination quota vacancies in excess of the permissible 25 per cent quota for recruitment through nomination.A Bench of Justices AS Chandurkar and Rajesh Patil, however, found that there was no violation of the 2008 Rules after noting that the petitioner had not adopted the right mode of calculating the ratio of nomination quota vacancies. The Court noted that vacancies in district judge posts were based on the existing cadre strength (working strength, not sanctioned strength) as of March 31st of every year, and that there has been no attempt to exceed the nomination quota laid down in the 2008 Rules. "Since the vacancies to be filled in are based on the existing strength of the cadre as on 31st March of the relevant year, the ratio of the aforesaid decisions (caselaws cited by the petitioner) cannot be applied to the case in hand. It therefore cannot be said that there has been any attempt to fill in the 25% posts through Nomination in excess of what is permissible under the Rules of 2008," the January 17 order read..The challenge centered on Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008, which says that 25 per cent of district judge posts are to be filled through nomination. The petitioner argued that the advertisements for 2022 and 2023 recruitment drives violated this rule by exceeding the 25 per cent quota for recruitment through nomination. The sanctioned strength of district judges in Maharashtra was 423 as of March 31, 2022, and 427 as of March 31, 2023. Going by this, the petitioner calculated that 105 and 106 posts could be filled under the nomination quota. The advertisements in question sought to fill an 4 posts in 2023 and 19 posts in 2024 by nomination. The petitioners claimed that this addition would lead to the the number of nominated judges exceeding the limit of 105 and 106 judges, respectively.The challenge also raised concerns about the creation of "ex-cadre posts" that were outside the prescribed recruitment process..In response, the High court administration, represented by Senior Advocate Milind Sathe argued that the vacancies were calculated based on the actual working strength of the judicial cadre, which included adjustments for retirements and promotions. The State's affidavit revealed that the actual working strength of district judges was 429 as of March 31, 2022, and 434 as of March 31, 2023, which was higher than the sanctioned strength. This increase allowed for a higher number of vacancies to be filled through nomination, while still remaining within the 25 per cent limit..Sathe added that a Permanent Selection and Appointment Committee's resolution from 2017 required vacancies to be calculated based on the working strength of judges, not just the sanctioned strength. He further explained that the advertisements had been issued in compliance with these guidelines, and that the number of vacancies advertised was within the allowable quota.The Court found the State’s calculation method to be correct, noting that the determination of vacancies was based on the actual working strength of the judiciary at the end of each year. "It is on this basis that under the advertisement dated 30th September 2023, 4 posts were sought to be filled in under the 25% quota, and under the advertisement dated 9th January 2024, 19 vacancies under that quota were sought to be filled in," it noted. .The Bench also rejected the petitioner's claim that the extra vacancies should be considered as "ex-cadre posts," observing that vacancies must reflect the actual working strength and cannot be determined solely by the sanctioned cadre strength.Subsequently, the Court upheld the recruitment process, stating that it adhered to the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008..Advocate Rahul S Kadam with advocates Shardul R Diwan, Vedant P Babar, Ditya S Aklekar appeared for the petitioner. Assistant Government Pleader Aditya R Deolekar appeared for the StateSenior Advocate Milind Sathe with advocate Rahul Nerlekar appeared for the Registrar General of the Bombay High Court..[Read Order]