Bombay High Court Rejects Challenge To Recruitment Process For Appointment Of District Judges In Maharashtra

The Bombay High Court has dismissed a challenge to the recruitment process for appointment to the post of District Judge by nomination in the Maharashtra Judicial Service. The Court held that candidates who participated in the selection process with full knowledge that it would be governed by the amendments approved by the High Court, though not formally notified on the date of the advertisement, could not challenge the process after being declared unsuccessful in the preliminary examination.

A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad was hearing a writ petition filed by practising advocates who had participated in the preliminary examination conducted for recruitment to 89 posts of District Judge by nomination (25%). The petitioners failed to secure the qualifying marks and challenged the advertisement dated 30.01.2026, the corrigendum dated 26.03.2026 and the preliminary examination results dated 14.05.2026. They contended that since the amendments to the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008 had not been notified when the advertisement was issued, the recruitment process could not have been conducted on the basis of those amendments.

The respondents submitted that the advertisement expressly informed candidates that the selection process would be governed by the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008, along with the amendments approved by the High Court, though they were yet to be notified.

Referring to Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa & Ors. [(2026) 4 SCC 596], the Court observed that the law declared by the Constitution Bench became operative from the date of the judgment and that all existing rules inconsistent with it ceased to operate. It noted that the amendments approved by the Bombay High Court were intended to bring the Rules into conformity with the law declared by the Supreme Court.

The Court further observed that Clause 2 of the advertisement expressly informed every applicant that the approved amendments would govern the selection process, notwithstanding that their formal notification was awaited, and that the petitioners had applied with full knowledge of this condition.

The Court reiterated that a candidate who participates in a selection process without protest cannot challenge it after being declared unsuccessful.

“… a candidate who participates in a selection process without any demur or protest is precluded from challenging the same after being declared unsuccessful,” the Court observed.

The Court concluded that the petitioners had failed to establish any arbitrariness, illegality or violation of Articles 14, 16 or 233 of the Constitution in the recruitment process. It observed that the challenge was hit by the principles of waiver and acquiescence, as the petitioners approached the Court only after failing in the preliminary examination.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the writ petition and discharged the rule without any order as to costs.

Case Title: Suraj Deepak Mane v. State of Maharashtra [Writ Petition No. 7604 of 2026].

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Bom) 298

Click Here To Read/Download Order