Advocates Move Bombay HC Against District Judge Recruitment, Say Judicial Officers Cannot Compete Under 25% Direct Quota Meant For Bar
A group of practising advocates has approached the Bombay High Court, challenging the ongoing recruitment process for appointment to the post of District Judge in Maharashtra, contending that serving judicial officers have been illegally permitted to compete under the 25% direct recruitment quota reserved exclusively for practising advocates.The Petitioners submitted that the recruitment to...
A group of practising advocates has approached the Bombay High Court, challenging the ongoing recruitment process for appointment to the post of District Judge in Maharashtra, contending that serving judicial officers have been illegally permitted to compete under the 25% direct recruitment quota reserved exclusively for practising advocates.
The Petitioners submitted that the recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service is divided into three distinct channels: 50% by promotion, 25% through Limited Competitive Examination and 25% by direct recruitment through nomination from eligible practising advocates having not less than seven years' continuous practice at the Bar. The petitioners state that in January 2026, the respondents initiated a recruitment process to fill 89 vacancies in the cadre of District Judge under the 25% nomination quota and issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible advocates.
According to the petition, the respondents sought to alter the said channel of recruitment by relying upon proposed amendments framed pursuant to the Supreme Court's judgment in Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3947 of 2020). The petitioners contend that the proposed amendments had not been notified in the Official Gazette and therefore had not attained legal force when the advertisement was issued. They further rely upon a clause in the advertisement itself, which recorded that the recruitment process was being regulated by amendments that were yet to be notified.
The petition further challenges Clause 11.5 of the advertisement, which allegedly permits vacancies advertised under the nomination quota to be filled by serving judicial officers if the posts remain unfilled. The petitioners contend that no such provision existed under the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008 or in earlier recruitment advertisements. According to them, vacancies under the 25% nomination quota constitute a distinct source of recruitment earmarked for practising advocates and permitting serving judicial officers to be considered against those vacancies effectively merges two separate channels of recruitment.
The petition also refers to a corrigendum dated 26 March 2026, granting age relaxation to certain serving judicial officers, which, according to the petitioners, enabled their participation in the recruitment process conducted under the nomination quota. The petitioners have submitted representations raising their grievances and seeking appropriate relief against the impugned advertisement and the ongoing recruitment process.
Case Title: Suraj Deepak Mane v. State of Maharashtra [Writ Petition of 2026]