While hearing a matter challenging the Gujarat High Court's recruitment process for District Judges, the Supreme Court orally indicated that it wishes to initiative to reform judicial examination process.
The Court was hearing writ petition was 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. Notice was issued last month.
When the matter was taken up today by a bench comprising Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mohana, the Court was informed by Advocate Prashant Bhushan that the records of the recruitment have now been placed before it, including the marks awarded in sealed cover. He added that as per the recruitment rules, a report has to be obtained from the High Court to which the candidate belongs to assess his character. He urged that the Court must see if the reports were obtained in these cases.
On this, Justice Bagchi said: "We are more interested in formulating some initiative for reforming the entire examination process." It kept the matter to be heard when the Chief Justice of India is also sitting in the present bench combination.
It ordered: "The registrar is present with the report in sealed cover. Report in sealed cover is taken on record. Post the matter on so and so date. The presence of the registrar is dispensed with."
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 to conduct a fresh, fair and transparent evaluation process.
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.
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.