The Supreme Court of India has ruled that candidates who participate in a recruitment process with full knowledge of its rules cannot challenge those rules after being declared unsuccessful. A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale dismissed an appeal challenging the 25% minimum qualifying mark in the interview for selection to the cadre of Additional District Judges in Rajasthan. The Court affirmed a 2018 judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, noting that the challenge to the validity of the minimum interview cut-off had become academic following its legislative deletion in 2017. Furthermore, the Court observed that altering a decade-old selection process would disrupt judicial administration, jeopardize the vested rights of serving officers, and open a Pandora’s box of retroactive litigation.
Background of the Case
The dispute traces back to March 21, 1996, when the Government of India, acting on directions from the Supreme Court, constituted the First National Judicial Pay Commission, known as the Shetty Commission. To eliminate arbitrariness in judicial selections, the Commission recommended a uniform selection procedure consisting of a written examination carrying 200 marks and a viva-voce carrying 50 marks. Crucially, the Commission recommended that there should be no cut-off marks in the viva-voce test, and that the merit list should be prepared strictly based on the aggregate marks of both rounds. In All India Judges Association vs. Union of India, the Supreme Court accepted these recommendations, directing all States to implement them.
Accordingly, the State of Rajasthan promulgated the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010. Rule 41 of the original rules did not prescribe any minimum qualifying marks for the interview. In April 2010, the High Court advertised 36 vacancies for the post of Additional District Judge under the advocates’ quota. However, following allegations of anomalies and public agitation, the entire recruitment process was cancelled in September 2010 to facilitate fresh examinations.
On June 10, 2011, the State of Rajasthan amended Rule 41 to insert a proviso mandating that no candidate would be recommended for appointment who failed to obtain a minimum of 25% marks in the interview (translating to 7.5 out of 30 marks). A fresh advertisement was then issued on July 19, 2011, for 39 vacancies.
The appellant, Manoj Goyal, participated in this renewed selection process. He secured 161 out of 250 marks (64.4%) in the written examination and was called for the interview. However, in the final results published on May 25, 2013, the appellant’s name was excluded. While his aggregate score of 168 marks placed him 11th in overall merit—outperforming several selected candidates who scored aggregates of 158.5 and 144—he was awarded only 7 marks out of 30 in the interview. Because he fell short of the 25% interview cut-off by 0.50 marks, he was disqualified.
The appellant and other candidates challenged the rules before the Supreme Court under Article 32. In October 2014, a coordinate bench of the Supreme Court dismissed the challenge against the select list and appointment orders but kept the challenge to Rule 41 pending. In December 2014, the Supreme Court permitted the appellant to withdraw the petition with liberty to approach the High Court, keeping all contentions open.
The appellant then filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court in 2015. During its pendency, the State of Rajasthan again amended the rules on November 28, 2017, deleting the interview cut-off proviso entirely. Citing this subsequent deletion, the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dismissed the appellant’s petition on February 8, 2018, holding that the challenge had become academic, the previous challenge to appointments had attained finality, and the appellant was estopped from challenging the selection criteria after failing. This led to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Arguments on Behalf of the Appellant:
The appellant argued that the High Court erred in relying on the Supreme Court’s October 2014 order, as the subsequent withdrawal order in December 2014 explicitly kept “all contentions open.” Relying on Messer Holdings Ltd. vs. Shyam Madanmohanruia & Ors. and St. John’s School vs. Asha Bhan, the appellant argued that upon withdrawal of a petition, all interim orders lapse.
The appellant contended that the challenge to Rule 41 was not academic, asserting that an unconstitutional rule is void ab initio, citing Behram Khurshid Pesikaka vs. State of Bombay and Mahendra Lal Jaini vs. State of U.P. Declaring the rule ultra vires would validate his right to appointment based on his aggregate merit.
It was further argued that introducing a viva-voce cut-off directly violated the Shetty Commission’s recommendations endorsed in the All India Judges Association case, and reaffirmed in Hemani Malhotra vs. High Court of Delhi and Ramesh Kumar vs. Delhi High Court. The appellant maintained that enacting a provision to override a binding judicial precedent constitutes an encroachment on judicial power, citing State of Tamil Nadu vs. K. Shyam Sunder. Additionally, applying the 2011 amendment retrospectively to vacancies occurring under the 2010 rules impaired vested rights, citing P. Mahendran vs. State of Karnataka and State of Rajasthan vs. R. Dayal. Finally, citing P.K. Ram Chandra Iyer vs. Union of India, the appellant argued that the rule was arbitrary as it made subjective interview scores the sole determining factor, rendering written examination merit redundant.
Arguments on Behalf of the Respondents:
The respondents robustly defended the selection process, contending that the appellant was barred by the doctrine of estoppel because he had participated in the examination and interview under the amended 2011 rules without any protest.
They supported the High Court’s view that the challenge was academic since the 25% cut-off proviso was deleted on November 28, 2017. They argued that the Supreme Court’s October 2014 order had attained finality regarding the finalized appointments and could not be resurrected.
Relying on Mahinder Kumar vs. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, the respondents argued that the Shetty Commission recommendations were only guidelines, and the selection process must strictly follow statutory rules framed by the competent authority. Citing Ramesh Kumar vs. High Court of Delhi and Mehmood Alam Tariq vs. State of Rajasthan, they argued that recruiting authorities are fully authorized to prescribe minimum qualifying interview marks to maintain the efficiency of the service. They asserted that for high judicial offices like an Additional District Judge, the interview is essential to assess personal and intellectual qualities such as alertness, resourcefulness, and leadership.
The Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court rejected the appellant’s contentions, finding no merit in the case. Clarifying the legal status of the Shetty Commission recommendations, the Court noted that they are guidelines rather than binding statutory mandates. Reaffirming the principle in Mahinder Kumar, the Bench observed that paragraph 10.97 of the Shetty Commission Report “can at best be stated to be a guideline, which any High Court should keep in mind, while resorting to selection for filling up the posts in the higher judicial service”.
The Court cited Syed T.A. Naqshbandi vs. State of J&K and Malik Mazhar Sultan vs. UP Public Services Commission to reiterate that selections must strictly adhere to the statutory rules validly in force, and statutory rules cannot yield to external guidelines until formally amended.
Addressing the administrative necessity of prescribing an interview benchmark, the Court observed that both written tests and interviews are critical. While a written test measures academic legal knowledge, the viva-voce evaluates essential intellectual and personal qualities required of a judge. The Court held: “The 25% cut-off was a rational, considered benchmark prescribed to preserve the integrity and quality of judicial administration.”
The Court applied the doctrine of estoppel to bar the appellant’s claim, noting that he participated in the selection process under the amended rules with his eyes wide open and only filed a challenge after being declared unsuccessful. The Bench cited Om Prakash Shukla vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors., where the Supreme Court observed:
“Moreover, this is a case where the petitioner in the writ petition should not have been granted any relief. He had appeared for the examination without protest. He filed the petition only after he had perhaps realised that he would not succeed in the examination. The High Court itself has observed that the setting aside of the results of examinations held in the other districts would cause hardship to the candidates who had appeared there. The same yardstick should have been applied to the candidates in the District of Kanpur also. They were not responsible for the conduct of the examination.”
The Bench also cited Madan Lal and Others vs. State of J & K and Ors., which held that “the result of the interview test on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected at the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful……” and Dhananjay Malik and Others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. to reinforce that unsuccessful candidates are estopped from subsequently challenging selection criteria.
The Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal and affirmed the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment dated February 8, 2018.
The Court emphasized the practical impossibility and injustice of granting any relief to the appellant at this stage, noting that the selected candidates from the 2011 advertisement have been serving as Additional District Judges for over a decade since July 2013. Granting retrospective seniority to the appellant today would disrupt the entire established seniority matrix of the judicial cadre.
Furthermore, the Court held that altering the decade-old selection list would be highly unfair to other similarly situated candidates who chose not to approach the courts, stating that acceding to the appellant’s prayers would effectively open a Pandora’s box of retroactive litigation, paralyzing the administrative machinery of the High Court and the State.
Case Title: Manoj Goyal v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 8142 of 2018
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Date: July 13, 2026
