Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-012185-012185 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 41870/2024 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ATUL S. CHANDURKAR |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms | Sets aside High Court order dated 13.06.2024 (overrules exercise of review jurisdiction) |
| Type of Law | Administrative Law; Judicial Service Rules |
| Questions of Law | Whether a High Court, in exercise of its review jurisdiction, can re-compute cut-off marks and order a fresh main examination after having already dismissed a writ petition on the same issues. |
| Ratio Decidendi (3–8 sentences) | The High Court had considered and rejected the respondents’ plea to re-compute cut-off marks in its order of 07.05.2024 when upholding the validity of the amended eligibility rules. A review petition cannot be used to re-open matters already adjudicated or to substitute a fresh view on eligibility and cut-off computations; that remedy lies in an appeal. Invoking review powers to direct a third main exam was beyond the scope of review and amounted to exercising appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order, reaffirming that review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The Madhya Pradesh High Court amended Rule 7(g) of the Judicial Service Rules, 1994, prescribing eligibility for Civil Judge (Entry Level). An advertisement for 199 posts invited candidates; respondents scored below the 113-mark cut-off in the preliminary exam and were excluded. Their writ petition to re-compute cut-off failed. A review petition led the HC to recall its order, direct deletion of ineligible candidates, re-compute cut-off on 1:10 ratio, and hold a fresh main exam. The Registrar General appealed, and the Supreme Court set aside the HC’s review order. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All High Courts exercising review jurisdiction under inherent powers and subordinate courts on service-rule challenges |
| Persuasive For | Future benches of this Court and High Courts in limits of review versus appellate jurisdiction |
| Overrules | Division Bench order of Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 13.06.2024 |
| Distinguishes | Review in “Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services” from general review powers—it was confined to physically impaired candidates |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Review jurisdiction cannot be used to re-open eligibility or cut-off determinations already considered and rejected.
- Substantive corrections (e.g., re-computing cut-off marks or ordering a fresh exam) require appellate proceedings, not review petitions.
- A review petition must demonstrate an error apparent on face of record; mere apprehension or likelihood of prejudice is insufficient.
- Direction to conduct a separate exam for one category (e.g., visually impaired) does not justify a further main exam for general candidates under review.
- Parties not impleaded cannot be prejudiced by orders in review petitions altering cut-off or exam processes.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Scope of Review Jurisdiction
The review powers under inherent jurisdiction are confined to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record, not substituting fresh decisions. - Prior Adjudication
The High Court’s writ petition judgment of 07.05.2024 had already upheld the amended eligibility rules and rejected respondents’ plea to re-compute cut-off marks as speculative. - Misuse of Review
Invoking review to revisit the same issues amounted to appellate jurisdiction, which the High Court does not possess in review proceedings. - Distinction with Specific-Category Exam
The second main exam for physically impaired candidates arose from distinct circumstances and could not be conflated with the general recruitment process via review. - Precedent Application
Reliance on Northern India Caterers, Kamlesh Verma, and Canara Bank to delineate limits on inherent review jurisdiction.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Registrar General & Examination Department, Madhya Pradesh High Court):
- The High Court lacked jurisdiction to reopen the eligibility and cut-off issues after affirming Rule 7(g) validity.
- Respondents scored below the cut-off; no factual or legal basis existed for a re-computation or fresh exam.
- The third main exam direction prejudiced non-party candidates and violated natural justice.
- A review petition cannot be used to effect substantive changes to recruitment procedures; it must pursue appellate remedies.
Respondents:
- All candidates, including ineligible ones, participated in prelim exam under interim orders; cut-off was tainted.
- Re-computing cut-off by excluding ineligible candidates would lower the mark and afford them a fair chance.
- Distinction exists between eligibility criteria and cut-off computation; the latter can be reviewed.
- Conduct of a second exam for a specific category implied a precedent for fresh exams to address procedural inequities.
Factual Background
The Madhya Pradesh High Court amended Rule 7(g) of the Judicial Service Rules, 1994, tightening eligibility for Civil Judge (Entry Level). An advertisement for 199 posts issued on 17.11.2023 led to a preliminary exam where respondents scored 112 and 108 against a 113-mark cut-off. Their writ petition for re-computation of cut-off failed on 07.05.2024. A review petition succeeded before a Division Bench, directing deletion of ineligible candidates, re-computing cut-off on 1:10 ratio, and a fresh main exam. The Registrar General appealed, and the Supreme Court set aside the review order.
Statutory Analysis
- Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 govern judicial recruitment.
- Rule 7(g) (amended 23.06.2023) prescribes continuous three-year advocacy or first-attempt marks (70% general/OBC; 50% SC/ST).
- Cut-off marks applied in prelim exam at a 1:10 ratio for main exam call-up.
- High Court upheld Rule 7(g) validity in writ petitions dated 01.04.2024 and SLP dismissal on 26.04.2024.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or separate concurring opinions were recorded; the bench was unanimous.
Procedural Innovations
None identified; the judgment clarifies existing limits on review jurisdiction rather than creating new procedures.
Alert Indicators
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – High Court’s substantive re-opening of settled writ issues via review overturned
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Northern India Caterers; Kamlesh Verma; Canara Bank