Maharashtra district judge recruitment: Bombay High Court refuses to stall main written exams

The Bombay High Court on June 25 dismissed a plea challenging an ongoing process for the recruitment of 89 district judges in Maharashtra, paving the way for the conduct of the main written examination which is scheduled on June 27 and 28 [Suraj Mane & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.].

Eight advocates had filed the plea. They had appeared for the preliminary examination conducted on May 10, 2026, but failed to secure the qualifying marks and were declared unsuccessful. 

They approached the High Court seeking to quash the advertisement and preliminary results of May 14, while also seeking a stay on the main written examination. 

Their core grievance was that the recruitment was being conducted on the basis of amendments to the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008, which had not been notified when the advertisement was issued.

A Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V Ghuge and Justice Gautam A Ankhad rejected the plea.

The Court found that the recruitment was aligned with the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench ruling in Rejanish KV v. K Deepa & Ors, which had held that all existing rules that were inconsistent with its judgment ceased to hold the field. 

The Bench noted that the Maharashtra district judge recruitment advertisement had expressly informed candidates that the selection process is regulated by an amended version of the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008, even if the amendments were formally notified only later.

The amendments had been approved by a full court of the Bombay High Court in January 2026 following the Rejanish KV judgment.

The petitioners before the High Court had argued that the recruitment process was required to be conducted in accordance with the rules that existed on January 30, when the advertisement was issued. 

They pointed out that the advertisement itself recorded that the amendments to these rules were yet to be notified. Therefore, such non‑notified rules could not govern the recruitment as it would be violative of the Constitution.

They further submitted that candidates cannot be prejudiced on account of the delay in the publication of the amended Rules. 

The Court, however, pointed out that the rules prevailing before their amendment stood quashed following the Supreme Court's Rejanish KV ruling, for being inconsistent with the findings in the said judgment.

"We find no merit in the submission that the approved amendments could not have been acted upon until their publication in the Official Gazette. The earlier inconsistent rules had ceased to operate, having been quashed by the pronouncement in Rejanish K.V. (supra). The notification dated 17th June, 2026 merely completed the formal statutory process of bringing the Rules in conformity with the binding directions of the Constitution Bench. In these peculiar facts, the recruitment process cannot be invalidated merely because the formal notification followed the issuance of the advertisement, particularly when the advertisement itself expressly disclosed the basis on which the recruitment was to be conducted," it held.

The Court also observed that the petitioning lawyers neither sought a copy of the approved amendments nor questioned the advertisement 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 Court ruled.

The Court concluded that the petitioners had failed to establish any arbitrariness, illegality or violation of the Constitution in the recruitment process under challenge.

It proceeded to dismiss the petition, thereby allowing the district judge recruitment process to proceed as scheduled.

Advocates Uday Warunjikar and Sumit S Kate appeared for the petitioner-lawyers. 

Government pleaders Neha Bhide, SD Vyas and GR Raghuwanshi appeared for the State of Maharashtra. 

Advocate General Milind Sathe with advocate Rahul Nerlekar appeared for the Registrar General of the High Court. 

[Read order]