The Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a group of advocates who challenged the ongoing recruitment process for District Judges in Maharashtra after they failed to qualify in the preliminary examination. The Court held that candidates who knowingly participate in a selection process cannot question its legality only after receiving an unfavorable result.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad ruled that the recruitment process was conducted in accordance with the law declared by the Supreme Court and found no arbitrariness or constitutional violation.
Background of the Case
The petition was filed by eight practising advocates who had appeared in the preliminary examination for recruitment to 89 District Judge posts under the Maharashtra Judicial Service. After failing to secure the qualifying marks, they challenged the recruitment advertisement issued on January 30, 2026.
The petitioners argued that the selection process relied on amendments to the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules that had not yet been officially notified when the recruitment advertisement was published. They contended that conducting the examination on the basis of unnotified rules was contrary to the Constitution and sought cancellation of the recruitment process, including a stay on the main written examination.
Court's Observations
The High Court rejected the principal argument raised by the petitioners, observing that the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa & Ors. had already settled the law governing appointments to the District Judge cadre. The Court noted that the earlier inconsistent rules had ceased to operate following the Supreme Court's judgment, and the amendments approved by the High Court were intended only to bring the service rules in line with those binding directions.
The Bench also pointed out that the recruitment advertisement itself clearly informed applicants that the selection process would be governed by the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008 along with the amendments approved by the High Court, even though the formal notification was awaited.
"The recruitment process was initiated after specifically informing the public at large that the Recruitment Process would be governed by the amendments approved by the High Court pursuant to the binding directions of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court," the Bench observed.
Participation Without Objection Bars Later Challenge
The Court emphasized that all applicants had full knowledge of the conditions mentioned in the recruitment advertisement before applying.
It noted that none of the petitioners challenged the advertisement before appearing in the examination or sought copies of the approved amendments. Instead, they participated in the process and approached the Court only after being declared unsuccessful in the preliminary examination.
Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Bench observed that a candidate who takes part in a recruitment process without protest cannot later question the same process merely because the outcome is unfavorable.
The Court stated,
"The Petitioners knowingly participated in the process without any objection and have approached this Court only after failing in the preliminary examination."
No Evidence of Prejudice
The petitioners also argued that the amended rules retrospectively changed the syllabus and examination process. However, the Court found no factual basis for this claim.
According to the Bench, no material had been placed before it to show that the syllabus was altered after the advertisement or that any moderation of answer sheets had caused prejudice to the candidates. Mere assertions without supporting evidence, the Court held, could not justify interference with an ongoing recruitment process.
Court's Decision
Finding no arbitrariness, illegality, or violation of Articles 14, 16, or 233 of the Constitution, the Bombay High Court dismissed the writ petition.
The Court concluded that the challenge was barred by the principles of waiver and acquiescence because the petitioners had voluntarily participated in the recruitment process despite knowing its terms and conditions.
Accordingly, Writ Petition No. 7604 of 2026 was dismissed, and the Rule was discharged without any order as to costs.
Case Details
Case Title: Suraj Deepak Mane & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 7604 of 2026
Judge: Acting Chief Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad
Decision Date: June 25, 2026
