The Bombay High Court has held that once the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa [(2026) 4 SCC 596] had declared the governing law under Article 233 of the Constitution and directed that all inconsistent State rules would stand quashed, the recruitment process for District Judge had to proceed in conformity with that law, even if the formal Gazette notification of the amended State rules followed later.
The Court clarified that where the advertisement itself clearly disclosed that the process would be governed by the approved amendments awaiting notification, and the candidates participated with full knowledge and without objection, they are precluded by waiver and acquiescence from challenging the process after failing in the examination. In the absence of any material showing actual prejudice, alleged retrospective change in the “rules of the game” could not be accepted.
Since the petitioners had failed to establish any arbitrariness, illegality, or violation of Articles 14, 16, or 233 of the Constitution in the recruitment process, the High Court concluded that the petition was devoid of merit and clearly hit by the principles of waiver and acquiescence.
Also Read CESTAT: Customs Cannot Re-Open Assessment Once Shipping Bills Culminate In Actual Export Of Goods
The Division Bench comprising the Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad observed that the petitioners’ main challenge could not be accepted because the law governing recruitment had already been authoritatively declared by the Constitution Bench in Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa [(2026) 4 SCC 596], and all inconsistent existing rules stood quashed from the date of that judgment itself. The Bench observed that the approved amendments were meant to bring the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008 in line with that binding declaration of law, and Clause 2 of the advertisement had expressly informed every candidate that the selection process would be governed by the 2008 Rules “and the amendments approved by the High Court thereto which are yet to be notified.”
The Bench found it significant that the petitioners applied with full knowledge of this condition, did not seek a copy of the amendments, did not challenge the advertisement before appearing in the examination, and came to Court only after failing in the preliminary examination.
The Bench further held that the challenge was barred by the principle that a candidate who participates in a selection process without protest cannot, after being declared unsuccessful, turn around and attack the same process. Referring to Tajvir Singh Sodhi v. State of Jammu and Kashmir [(2023) 17 SCC 147], the Bench said such a candidate cannot approbate and reprobate. It also rejected the argument that Rule 6(2)(b) had retrospectively altered the syllabus or examination mode, noting that the petitioners had produced no material to show that the syllabus was changed after the advertisement or that any moderation caused them prejudice.
Also Read Filing of Charge Sheet Does Not Bar Anticipatory Bail: Jharkhand High Court
Briefly, eight practising advocates has filed this petition after failing to secure the qualifying marks in the preliminary examination for recruitment to the cadre of District Judge by nomination (25%) in the Maharashtra Judicial Service. They challenged Advertisement No. A.5504/2025 dated 30 January 2026, the corrigendum dated 26 March 2026, and the preliminary examination result dated 14 May 2026, and also sought a stay on the main written examination scheduled for 27 and 28 June 2026.
Their case was that, on the date of the advertisement, the amendments to the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008 had not yet been notified in the Official Gazette, and therefore the recruitment process could not lawfully proceed on the basis of those amendments. Before this recruitment, the Constitution Bench judgment in Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa [(2026) 4 SCC 596] had directed all States and High Courts to amend judicial service rules in conformity with that judgment, and the Bombay High Court had approved draft amendments on 7 January 2026, while the State notified them later on 17 June 2026.
