Sub-title: A Bench led by CJI Surya Kant seeks a response after petitioners challenge the Gujarat High Court’s recruitment process for 113 District Judge posts.
Supreme Court Issues Notice
The Supreme Court has issued notice on a plea challenging the Gujarat District Judge Recruitment process for 2024-25. The petition concerns 113 District Judge posts under the 25% direct recruitment quota.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant led the three-judge Bench. Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana also heard the matter.
Advocate Prashant Bhushan appeared for the petitioners. He argued that the selection process lacked fairness and transparency.
Petitioners Challenge Recruitment Result
The petitioners challenged the final result issued on July 9, 2026.
They asked the Supreme Court to set aside the result to the extent that it declared them unsuccessful. They also sought a fresh evaluation through a fair and transparent process.
The petitioners argued that the High Court left all 113 posts vacant. They claimed that the decision appeared arbitrary and unreasonable.
They also relied on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. According to them, the recruitment process violated the principles of equality and equal opportunity.
Recruitment Process For 113 Posts
The Gujarat High Court issued the recruitment advertisement on July 25, 2025. The notice covered 113 District Judge posts under the 25% direct recruitment quota.
Candidates had to clear several stages. These included a preliminary examination, Gujarati language test, main examination, and viva voce.
A total of 729 candidates appeared for the preliminary examination. Only 31 candidates reached the main examination.
Eventually, only two candidates qualified for the interview stage under the direct recruitment quota. They were the two petitioners in the Supreme Court case.
Interview Marks Led To No Selection
The High Court conducted the viva voce on April 30, 2026. It published the final result on July 9, 2026.
The High Court did not recommend any candidate for appointment. As a result, all 113 posts remained vacant.
Mansi Jain scored 100.5 out of 200 marks in the written examination. However, she scored only 9.6 out of 50 in the interview.
Vishal Baljit Singh scored 110.5 out of 200 in the written examination. He received 10 out of 50 marks in the interview.
The interview required candidates to score at least 20 out of 50 marks. Neither petitioner reached that threshold.
Petition Points To Earlier Recruitment Cycles
The petition also highlights recruitment results from earlier years.
It states that five recruitment drives covered 264 notified vacancies over seven years. These drives took place in 2019, 2020, 2022, 2023, and the current 2024-25 cycle.
The notified vacancies were 26 in 2019, 34 in 2020, 34 in 2022, 57 in 2023, and 113 in the current cycle.
According to the petition, only one candidate received an appointment under the 25% direct recruitment quota across these drives.
Petitioners Question Interview Process
Prashant Bhushan raised concerns about the interview process.
He said the same five-judge High Court committee conducted interviews for three recruitment streams. These included direct recruitment, Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), and regular promotion.
Bhushan pointed to the results of judicial officers under the LDCE quota. He said nine officers failed to reach the minimum viva voce marks under that quota.
However, the same officers later qualified under the regular promotion quota. Bhushan noted that the promotion quota had a higher qualifying percentage.
He also said the petitioners’ interviews lasted only about five minutes each.
The petition relies on the Justice Shetty Commission Report. It argues that judicial appointment interviews should generally last between 25 and 30 minutes.
The petitioners also contend that the viva voce should not have a separate cut-off.
Challenge To Weight Given To Viva Voce
The petitioners argue that the recruitment process gave excessive importance to the viva voce.
They contend that the interview scores effectively cancelled out their written examination performance.
The petition relies on the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench decision in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi.
That judgment cautioned against giving excessive weight to subjective oral interviews in public recruitment.
The petitioners have therefore questioned the fairness of the evaluation process.
Interim Relief Sought Before Supreme Court
The petitioners have also sought interim protection.
They want the Supreme Court to stay the July 9 result. They also want the Court to prevent the Gujarat High Court from starting a fresh recruitment process.
The petitioners further seek an order preventing the authorities from filling the 113 vacancies while the case remains pending.
The Gujarat District Judge Recruitment dispute will now proceed after the Supreme Court’s notice.Rea
