Supreme Court Issues Notice On Advocates' Plea Challenging Gujarat District Judge Recruitment Results

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on a writ petition filed by two advocates challenging the Gujarat High Court's recruitment process for District Judges under the 25% direct recruitment quota for the recruitment year 2024-25, in which none of the 113 advertised vacancies were filled despite two candidates qualifying for the viva voce stage.

A bench of CJI Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana issued notice after briefly hearing Advocate Prashant Bhushan for the petitioners.

The petition challenges the final result dated July 9, 2026, and seeks directions to set aside the result insofar as it declares them unsuccessful and a fresh, fair and transparent evaluation process.

“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 Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution”, the plea contends.

The Gujarat High Court had advertised 113 District Judge vacancies under the 25% direct recruitment quota on July 25, 2025. The selection process consisted of a preliminary examination, Gujarati language test, main written examination and viva voce. Out of 729 candidates who appeared in the preliminary examination, only 31 qualified for the main examination. Ultimately, the two petitioners were the only candidates who qualified for the viva voce under the direct recruitment quota.

The petition states that after the viva voce held on April 30, 2026, the Gujarat High Court declared the final result on July 9, 2026, without recommending any candidate for appointment, leaving all 113 advertised vacancies unfilled. Mansi Jain secured 100.5 marks out of 200 in the written examination but only 9.6 out of 50 in the viva voce. Vishal Baljit Singh secured 110.5 out of 200 in the written examination and 10 out of 50 in the viva voce. Candidates were required to obtain 20 out of 50 marks in the interview to qualify.

The petition highlights that over the last seven years only one appointment has been made under the 25% direct recruitment quota despite five recruitment exercises and 264 notified vacancies, comprising 26 vacancies in 2019, 34 in 2020, 34 in 2022, 57 in 2023 and 113 in 2024-25. The petition also alleges that there are inconsistencies in the interview process.

Yesterday, Advocate Prashant Bhushan submitted that the same committee of five High Court judges conducted interviews for the 25% direct recruitment quota, the 25% Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) quota and the 50% regular promotion quota during a common interview schedule. He highlighted that nine judicial officers who failed to secure the minimum viva voce marks under the LDCE quota were later declared successful under the regular promotion quota despite the higher qualifying percentage prescribed there.

Bhushan also submitted that the petitioners' viva voce lasted only about five minutes. He contended that as per the Justice Shetty Commission Report, interviews for judicial appointments should ordinarily last between 25 and 30 minutes and there should be no cut-off marks in the viva voce.

The petition argues that the brief interview rendered the assessment inadequate and raises concerns about the fairness and reliability of the evaluation process.

The petition further argues that the selection process gave overriding importance to the viva voce, effectively nullifying the petitioners' performance in the written examination. It relies on the Supreme Court's Constitution Bench judgment in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi to contend that oral interviews are inherently subjective and should not be given disproportionate significance in public recruitment.

Along with the writ petition, the petitioners have sought interim relief to stay the operation of the July 9 result and restrain the Gujarat High Court from initiating a fresh recruitment process or filling the 113 notified vacancies during the pendency of the case.

Case no. – W.P.(C) No. 925/2026 

Case Title: Mansi Jain & Anr. v. Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat