The Supreme Court of India on September 23, 2025, allowed the appeal against the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s order directing fresh examinations and revising cut-off marks, passed by way of review jurisdiction concerning the recruitment of Civil Judges (Entry Level). Justices P. Narasimha and Atul S. Chandurkar noted that the High Court had exceeded its powers and could not revisit a matter already decided through review jurisdiction.
The case arose from the recruitment of Civil Judge posts under the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994. As per the amended Rule 7, candidates were required to have practiced as Advocates for at least three years or secured minimum marks of 70% (General/OBC) or 50% (SC/ST) in the first attempt without failing in any subject. The High Court advertised 199 posts on 17.11.2023. The respondents scored below the original cut-off in the preliminary examination and were thus declared ineligible. The respondents filed a review petition, arguing that excluding ineligible candidates could lower the cut-off and afford them a fair chance. Following this, the Division Bench of the High Court, on 13.06.2024, directed exclusion of ineligible candidates, recomputation of the cut-off, and an additional main examination for those scoring between the original and revised cut-off. The appellants objected, stating that the High Court had exceeded its review jurisdiction, as Rule 7’s validity had already been upheld and no ineligible candidate would be appointed.The respondents countered this saying that recomputation was necessary to avoid unfair exclusion of eligible candidates.
The Court observed that the respondents’ apprehension regarding reduction of cut-off marks was unfounded, and the High Court could not revisit a matter already decided through review jurisdiction. It also noted that the separate main examination for physically impaired candidates did not benefit the respondents, and no ineligible candidate would be called for an interview. The Court held that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction, and accordingly, it set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal. Furthermore, the appellants were directed to conclude the recruitment process initiated after the advertisement dated 17.11.2023 at the earliest, with the parties bearing their own costs.
