Supreme Court To Hear Plea Challenging Gujarat Civil Judge Recruitment Process

The Supreme Court recently issued notice to the Gujarat High Court and the Gujarat Government on a writ petition challenging the recruitment process conducted for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division).

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul Pancholi, on February 26, issued notice returnable on March 12.

The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by twenty candidates who participated in the recruitment examination, contends that the process has resulted in an “unusual situation" where the number of candidates shortlisted for the viva-voce is itself lower than the number of vacancies notified.

The recruitment process was initiated through an advertisement dated January 30, 2025 notifying 212 vacancies for Civil Judge (Junior Division). The preliminary examination was conducted on June 29, 2025, following which 829 candidates qualified for the main written examination.

The main written examination was held on October 12, 2025. The result of the main examination was declared on January 22, 2026, where only 211 candidates were declared qualified for the viva-voce despite 212 vacancies being notified, and the petitioners were not included in the list.

The petitioners argue that this outcome raises serious concerns regarding the evaluation process, particularly because the number of candidates shortlisted for the interview stage is almost equal to, and even less than, the number of advertised vacancies. According to the plea, in judicial service recruitment it is ordinarily expected that a substantially larger pool of candidates would qualify for viva-voce so that comparative assessment of merit can be meaningfully undertaken.

The plea further alleges irregularities in the question paper of the main examination. It claims that one question in the Civil Law paper was outside the notified syllabus and another question was fundamentally defective in its framing, causing ambiguity for candidates. One of the questions allegedly outside the syllabus asked about the effect of non-registration of documents required to be compulsorily registered, which the petitioners say did not fall within the notified syllabus governing the examination.

The petitioners submit that in a competitive examination where even small variations in marks can determine selection, the presence of such defective or out-of-syllabus questions could materially affect the results. They contend that all candidates ought to have been granted appropriate corrective relief such as grace marks.

The plea also alleges that the evaluation process lacked transparency and moderation, and claims that the marking pattern appeared disproportionately strict, leading to the exclusion of several candidates who had previously qualified for interviews in earlier recruitment cycles.

According to the petition, the Gujarat High Court scheduled the viva-voce interviews from February 2 to February 25, 2026, and the process has already commenced.

In this backdrop, the petitioners have approached the Supreme Court seeking directions including re-evaluation of answer scripts and corrective measures for the allegedly out-of-syllabus and defective questions. They have also urged the Court to examine whether the evaluation framework adopted in the present recruitment process meets constitutional standards of fairness, transparency and equal opportunity in public employment.

Senior Advocates PS Patwalia, Nisarg Choudhary AOR, Advocates Ravish Kumar and Prashant Karan represented the petitioners.

Case :Ruchi Sharma and others v. High Court of Gujarat and others | WP(c) 259/2026