Judicial Recruitment | Deemed 1-Year Practice Exemption Restricted To Law Graduates Who Passed Out Before August 22, 2025: Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court has upheld the Maharashtra Public Service Commission's (MPSC) corrigendum restricting the benefit of deemed completion of one year of active legal practice in the Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class recruitment process to law graduates who obtained their degrees before August 22, 2025. The Court observed that the Supreme Court's directions in Bhumika Trust v. Union of India must be read as a whole and do not exempt all law graduates from the requirement of one year of actual practice.
A Division Bench of Justice Sarang V. Kotwal and Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale was hearing two petitions filed by the petitioners, both of whom obtained their law degrees in 2026. They challenged the MPSC corrigendum dated October 23, 2026, issued in connection with the recruitment examination for Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class, seeking permission to participate in the selection process.
The corrigendum followed the Supreme Court's August 21, 2026 judgment in Bhumika Trust. It permitted law graduates who had obtained their degrees before August 22, 2025, to apply, subject to the other eligibility conditions. It also provided that such graduates, along with other eligible candidates who had not completed three years of actual legal practice, would be deemed to have completed one year of active practice.
The petitioners argued that paragraph 73(i) of the Supreme Court's judgment made all law graduates eligible to apply during the transitional period, without restricting the benefit to those who had graduated before August 22, 2025. They contended that the MPSC had incorrectly interpreted the expression “Law Graduates” by creating separate classes based on the date of obtaining the degree.
The High Court examined the Supreme Court's earlier decision in All India Judges Association v. Union of India [(1993) 4 Supreme Court Cases 288], which restored the requirement of three years' practice for candidates seeking appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division). It noted that, in Bhumika Trust, the Supreme Court had not disturbed the underlying requirement of prior practical exposure to court proceedings. Instead, it had devised a transitional arrangement to address the sudden restoration of the practice requirement.
“… the Hon'ble Supreme Court was not persuaded that the Judgment under Review required to be reconsidered on the fundamental question whether some prior exposure to the working of courts is desirable for a person seeking entry into the judicial service… the Hon'ble Supreme Court very categorically observed that the requirement of prior exposure to the working of Courts was necessary,” the Court remarked.
The Court observed that paragraph 73(i) of Bhumika Trust deemed law graduates to have completed one year of active practice because more than one year had elapsed since the judgment under review. The expression “such candidates” in that direction had to be read in this context and could not be interpreted as extending the exemption to every law graduate.
“Direction 73(i) does not stop at mentioning all Law Graduates to become eligible. The direction has to be read as a whole. In the same direction 73(i) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered that one year has elapsed since the judgment under review was pronounced. In that context, it was observed that 'such candidates' (emphasis supplied) be deemed to have completed one year of active practice,” the Court held.
The Bench rejected the petitioners' attempt to distinguish between “Law Graduates” and “candidates”, holding that the one-year actual practice requirement remained necessary under the Supreme Court's directions.
Finding that the MPSC corrigendum was consistent with the Supreme Court's directions, the High Court declined to interfere with it and dismissed both petitions.
Case Title: Satish Maulyawan Patole v. State of Maharashtra [Writ Petition No. 15159 of 2026] and Jinesh Jitendra Koli v. State of Maharashtra [Writ Petition No. 15160 of 2026]