The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered on September 23, 2025, set aside an order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, holding that the High Court exceeded its review jurisdiction by reconsidering arguments it had already dismissed. The case, High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. vs. Jyotsna Dohalia & Anr., concerned the recruitment process for Civil Judges. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice P. S. Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, found that the High Court’s decision to order a re-computation of cut-off marks and a fresh main examination was an impermissible exercise of power, akin to an appellate review.
Background of the Case
The dispute originated from an advertisement dated November 17, 2023, for the recruitment of Civil Judges in Madhya Pradesh. The eligibility criteria for this recruitment were governed by the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, which were amended on June 23, 2023. The amendment, under Rule 7, stipulated new requirements, including a minimum of three years of continuous practice as an advocate or securing at least 70% marks (for General/OBC) or 50% (for SC/ST) in the law degree in the first attempt.
Following a challenge to the amended rules, the Supreme Court, by an interim order on December 15, 2023, in Monica Yadav and Others Vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Another, permitted all candidates eligible under the pre-amended rules to participate in the recruitment process, subject to the final outcome of the challenge.
The respondents, Jyotsna Dohalia and another candidate, participated in the preliminary examination held on January 14, 2024. The results, declared on March 10, 2024, set the cut-off at 113 marks. The respondents, having scored 112 and 108 marks respectively, failed to qualify for the main examination.
Subsequently, on April 1, 2024, the Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld the validity of the amended Rule 7(g). A Special Leave Petition challenging this decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court on April 26, 2024. Following this, the respondents’ writ petition challenging the preliminary examination results was also dismissed by the High Court on May 7, 2024, on the grounds that they had not secured the required cut-off marks.
However, the respondents filed a review application. On June 13, 2024, the High Court, exercising its review jurisdiction, recalled its previous order. It directed the administration to exclude all candidates who did not meet the eligibility criteria under the amended rules, re-compute the cut-off marks, and conduct a fresh main examination for candidates who would now qualify. The High Court administration challenged this review order before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The appellant, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, argued before the Supreme Court that the Division Bench had committed a clear error by exercising review jurisdiction. It contended that the review order effectively substituted the court’s earlier, well-reasoned decision, which is not permissible in law. It was argued that the review was based on the incorrect premise that ineligible candidates might be appointed, whereas the High Court administration had already clarified that only eligible candidates would be considered for the final interview.
The respondents, on the other hand, supported the High Court’s review order. They argued that the participation of a large number of ineligible candidates (under the amended rules) in the preliminary exam had artificially inflated the cut-off marks. They contended that once these ineligible candidates were removed, the cut-off would naturally be lowered, thereby giving them an opportunity to appear for the main examination.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court, in its judgment authored by Justice Atul S. Chandurkar, found that the High Court had indeed exceeded its review jurisdiction. The bench noted that the very same contention regarding the re-computation of cut-off marks had been raised by the respondents in their initial writ petition and was explicitly rejected by the High Court in its order dated May 7, 2024.
The Supreme Court quoted the High Court’s original finding:
“The sorting of the candidates after the main examination is over will not create any possibility that the candidates who have not even attained the benchmark in the preliminary examination, their names can be considered in the preliminary examination list or in the main list. In absence of any explanation that could be given by the petitioners to the aforesaid, no benefit could be extended to them.”
The apex court observed, “The contention raised by the respondents based on a likelihood of reduction in the cut-off marks having been turned down, it was not open for the High Court, in exercise of review jurisdiction, to re-consider the very same contention and hold otherwise. Such exercise could have been undertaken only in exercise of appellate jurisdiction and not in exercise of review jurisdiction.”
The Supreme Court further noted that the apprehension about ineligible candidates being appointed was unfounded. An affidavit filed by the Registrar of the High Court confirmed that “no ineligible candidate though successful in the main written examination would be called for interview.”
Therefore, the Supreme Court concluded that there was no valid reason for the High Court to invoke its review jurisdiction. The judgment set aside the High Court’s order of June 13, 2024, dismissed the respondents’ review petition, and directed the High Court of Madhya Pradesh to conclude the recruitment process initiated by the advertisement dated November 17, 2023, at the earliest.
