Back
Supreme Court Issues Notice on Gujarat District Judge Recruitment Leaving 113 Posts Vacant
The on Friday issued notice on a writ petition challenging the 's decision to recommend zero candidates for 113 District Judge vacancies under the 25% direct recruitment quota for the recruitment year 2024-25. Despite two advocates having cleared the written examination and qualifying for the stage, neither was recommended for appointment, leaving all advertised posts unfilled. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana, heard preliminary arguments from , who appeared for the petitioners, and directed the respondents to respond.
The petition, filed by Mansi Jain and Vishal Baljit Singh, challenges the final result dated , which declared them unsuccessful after the held on . The core allegations center on arbitrariness in the interview process, the brief duration of the oral examination, and the system's failure to fill a large number of notified vacancies despite eligible candidates. The petitioners argue that the refusal to recommend any candidate violates of the , guaranteeing equality before the law and equal opportunity in public employment.
Background: A Seven-Year Recruitment Drought
The case sheds light on a recurring issue within Gujarat's judicial recruitment framework. According to the petition, over the past seven years, only one appointment has been made under the 25% direct recruitment quota, despite five separate recruitment exercises and a cumulative total of 264 notified vacancies. These vacancies spanned 2019 (26 posts), 2020 (34), 2022 (34), 2023 (57), and the most recent 2024-25 cycle (113 posts). The repeated failure to fill these positions raises serious concerns about the effectiveness and transparency of the selection process, particularly given the constitutional mandate to ensure timely and fair recruitment for the judiciary.
In the current cycle, the advertised 113 vacancies on . The selection process comprised four stages: a preliminary examination, a Gujarati language test, a main written examination, and a . Of the 729 candidates who appeared for the preliminary examination, only 31 progressed to the main written examination. Ultimately, only two candidates—Mansi Jain and Vishal Baljit Singh—qualified for the under the direct recruitment quota.
The Disputed Evaluation: Marks and Minutes
The central grievance in the petition concerns the results. Mansi Jain obtained 100.5 marks out of 200 in the written examination but only 9.6 out of 50 in the interview. Vishal Baljit Singh scored 110.5 in the written examination and 10 out of 50 in the . Candidates were required to secure a minimum of 20 out of 50 marks in the interview to be considered for recommendation. Neither candidate reached this threshold, leading to the declaration that no one was suitable for appointment.
The petitioners contend that such drastic scoring disparity—where both candidates performed well in the written test but received exceptionally low interview marks—indicates an inconsistent and possibly biased evaluation process. They further point out that the lasted only about five minutes per candidate, which they argue is grossly insufficient for a meaningful assessment of a judicial aspirant's suitability.
"Bhushan also submitted that the petitioners'
lasted only about five minutes. He contended that as per the
Report, interviews for judicial appointments should ordinarily last between 25 and 30 minutes and there should be no cut-off marks in the
."
The
, a high-level committee that examined judicial appointments and working conditions, had recommended longer interview durations to enable a thorough evaluation of a candidate's judicial temperament, analytical skills, and communication abilities. The petition relies on this recommendation to highlight the inadequacy of the brief interview.
The Petitioners’ Legal Arguments
The writ petition advances several grounds to challenge the recruitment outcome. First, it argues that the 's action in refusing to recommend any candidate, despite the existence of a large number of notified vacancies, is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of . The petition specifically states: “The Petitioners submit that the action of the Respondent in refusing to recommend any candidate despite the existence of a large number of notified vacancies is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of of the .”
Second, the petitioners contend that the selection process gave
"overriding importance to the
, effectively nullifying the petitioners' performance in the written examination."
They rely on the Supreme Court's
Bench judgment in
, which held that oral interviews are inherently subjective and should not be given disproportionate significance in public recruitment. The petition argues that by imposing a stringent minimum cut-off in the interview and awarding scores that far outweigh the written examination performance, the High Court effectively ignored the demonstrated merit of the candidates.
Third, the petitioners allege inconsistencies in the interview process itself. They cite the fact that the same committee of five High Court judges conducted interviews for all three recruitment streams during a common schedule: the 25% direct recruitment quota, the 25% Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) quota, and the 50% regular promotion quota. Notably, nine judicial officers who failed to secure the minimum marks under the LDCE quota were later declared successful under the regular promotion quota, despite the higher qualifying percentage prescribed for that stream. This disparity suggests that the interview evaluation was not applied uniformly, undermining the credibility of the process.
Supreme Court’s Initial Response
During the hearing, the bench issued notice to the respondents, primarily the Registrar General of the , and directed them to respond to the petition. The court did not pass any interim orders, but the petitioners have separately sought an on the operation of the result and a restraint on the High Court from initiating a fresh recruitment process or filling the 113 vacancies pending the outcome of the case.
The case has been registered as W.P.(C) No. 925/2026 and titled . The next hearing will likely occur after the respondents file their , which the petitioners anticipate will address the detailed allegations of arbitrariness and procedural irregularities.
Legal Implications for Judicial Recruitment
This case touches on fundamental principles of administrative law and judicial independence. The outcome could have far-reaching consequences for how High Courts conduct recruitment for judicial posts, particularly in the often-criticized component. The Supreme Court has, in previous rulings, emphasized that while interviews are a legitimate tool for assessing personality and communication skills, they must not be used in a manner that defeats the purpose of merit-based selection. The reliance on Ajay Hasia reinforces this doctrine.
The petitioners’ arguments also raise questions about the and the need for standardized interview protocols. If the Supreme Court finds merit in the challenge, it may direct High Courts to reconsider their use of minimum qualifying marks in interviews, the duration of such interviews, and the transparency of the evaluation records. Such a ruling would align with the broader push for judicial accountability and timely appointments to address the backlog of cases.
Furthermore, the case highlights a systemic issue: the persistent under-filling of judicial vacancies in the lower judiciary. With only one appointment under the direct recruitment quota in seven years, the has effectively failed to fulfill its constitutional duty to maintain an adequate strength of judges. The Supreme Court’s scrutiny could prompt corrective measures, including the possibility of ordering a fresh selection process with clearer guidelines.
Impact on Aspiring Judicial Officers
For the many law graduates and practicing advocates who aspire to become district judges, this litigation offers a glimmer of hope. The current system, as evidenced by this case, can leave qualified candidates in limbo despite performing well on written tests. The petitioners have demonstrated that they were eligible and capable, yet their interview scores were deemed insufficient without a clear explanation. The Supreme Court’s notice indicates that it is willing to examine such arbitrary outcomes.
If the Court ultimately rules in favor of the petitioners, it could set a precedent that forces High Courts to justify their selection decisions, particularly when they fail to fill vacancies. It may also lead to the adoption of more objective criteria for interviews and a reduced dependency on cut-off marks, as recommended by the Shetty Commission.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision to issue notice in this matter signals a potential crackdown on opaque recruitment practices. The petitioners have presented compelling evidence of a process that, over seven years, has virtually failed to fill 25% direct quota posts. The questions raised—about the brevity of interviews, the inconsistency in evaluation, and the disproportionate weight given to —strike at the heart of fairness in judicial appointments. As the case progresses, legal professionals across India will closely watch the outcome, hoping for a clarification that ensures merit and transparency in the selection of judges. The next hearing will be crucial in determining whether the Court will grant interim relief or pursue a full hearing, but the very fact that notice has been issued underscores the gravity of these concerns.
