The court clarified that review jurisdiction cannot be used to re-evaluate decisions unless significant errors are evident, maintaining the integrity of eligibility criteria in recruitment processes.

JUDGMENT :

ATUL S. CHANDURKAR, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh through its Registrar General is aggrieved by the exercise of review jurisdiction by the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in proceedings relating to the recruitment of Judicial Officers under the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994.

3. Facts relevant for considering the challenges as raised are that the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 (for short, hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”) govern the field of recruitment of Judicial Officers in the State. The eligibility criteria for candidates who seek appointment on the post of Civil Judge (Entry Level) is prescribed therein. Rule 7 of the said Rules came to be amended on 23.06.2023 as a result of which only such candidate, who had been in continuous practice as an Advocate for at least three years or had secured 70 percent or above marks in so far as General Category and Other Backward Classes Category were concerned and 50 percent or more in respect of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes categories in his/her first attempt without ATKT was eligible to apply.

4. On 17.11.2023, the High Court issued an advertisement for recruitment on about 199 posts of Civil Judge (Entry Level). 61 of these posts pertained to the year 2022. Of the remaining 138 posts, 6 posts were earmarked for Persons with Disabilities, 17 posts were for General category candidates, 11 posts were for Scheduled Caste candidates, 109 posts were for Scheduled Tribe candidates and 01 post for the Other Backward Class candidates. The validity of amended Rule 7 of the Rules was the subject matter of challenge in various writ petitions filed before the High Court. The issue had reached this Court and by an order dated 15.12.2023 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1380 of 2023 ( Monica Yadav and Others Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Another ), all the candidates who were eligible in accordance with the Rules prior to their amendment on 23.06.2023 were permitted to participate in the recruitment process. Such participation was made subject to outcome of the challenge to the vires of the Rules that was pending before the High Court.

5. The result of the preliminary examination came to be declared on 10.03.2024. The respondents herein who had participated in the recruitment process secured 112 marks and 108 marks respectively. The cut-off marks were 113. The main examination was thereafter held on 30-31.03.2024. The High Court vide its judgment dated 01.04.2024 decided various writ petitions raising a challenge to the validity of the Rules of 1994. In so far as the challenge to the amendment of Rule 7(g) of the Rules of 1994 was concerned, the same was negatived. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.9570 of 2024 ( Garima Khare Vs. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Another ) challenging the aforesaid judgment dated 01.04.2024 came to be dismissed on 26.04.2024. Thereafter, on 07.05.2024, Writ Petition (Civil) No.12399 of 2024 preferred by the respondents raising challenge to the results of the preliminary examination came to be dismissed. The High Court held that both the respondents had secured marks that were below the cut-off marks and hence they could not be permitted to participate in the main examination.

6. The respondents thereafter filed a review application on 25.05.2024 seeking recall of the order dated 07.05.2024 passed by the High Court dismissing their writ petition. The Division Bench in exercise of review jurisdiction proceeded to hold that t