While hearing a challenge to Gujarat High Court’s process for appointing District Judges under the 25% direct recruitment quota, the Supreme Court has signaled strong intentions to overhaul the judicial recruitment system nationwide. Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana made the remarks during a case brought by two advocates contesting the High Court’s recruitment procedures for the 2024-25 cycle.
## Background of the Dispute
The petitioners, Mansi Jain and Vishal Baljit Singh, are contesting the final result declared on July 9, 2026, by Gujarat High Court. They seek directions to overturn that result—one which found them unsuccessful—and demand a fresh evaluation process marked by fairness and transparency.
The dispute stems from the District Judge recruitment process for 2024-25. In July 2025, 113 vacancies were advertised under the 25% direct recruitment quota. The selection procedure included:
– A preliminary exam
– A Gujarati language test
– Main written examination
– Viva voce (oral interview)
Out of 729 candidates who took the preliminary exam, only 31 advanced to the main written exam. Ultimately, only two candidates—namely Jain and Singh—qualified for the viva voce under this quota.
## Key Grievances Over Interview & Evaluation
After the viva voce held on April 30, 2026, the High Court issued its final results without recommending anyone for appointment—even though all 113 positions remained unfilled.
Specifically:
– Mansi Jain scored 100.5 out of 200 in the written test, but only 9.6 out of 50 in the viva voce.
– Vishal Baljit Singh earned 110.5 in the written test and 10 in the viva, though neither cleared the 20-mark threshold required to pass the interview.
The petition asserts that over seven years, only one appointment has been made under the 25% direct recruitment quota—despite five recruitment cycles and 264 notified vacancies. These cycles included:
– 26 vacancies in 2019
– 34 in 2020
– 34 in 2022
– 57 in 2023
– 113 in 2024-25
Petitioners also criticize the interview’s brevity and subjective nature, arguing that it disproportionately overshadowed their written exam performance. They invoke the Supreme Court’s Constitution Bench decision in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, which cautioned against excessive reliance on oral interviews in public recruitment.
## Supreme Court Signals a Broader Reform
During the hearing, Advocate Prashant Bhushan presented sealed records—including marks and reports—from the High Court. He emphasized that recruitment rules mandate character reports from a candidate’s home High Court, questioning whether those were duly obtained.
Justice Bagchi responded, “We are more interested in formulating some initiative for reforming the entire examination process.” The bench indicated it would take the case up again when the Chief Justice of India joins the same bench panel.
## Court Orders and Next Steps
– The Supreme Court directed that the sealed cover report submitted by the registrar be taken on record.
– The registrar’s presence was excused for now.
– The matter is scheduled for hearing on a date when the Chief Justice of India is also present.
## What the Petitioners Are Seeking
Through their filing in W.P.(C) No. 925/2026, titled *Mansi Jain & Anr. v. Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat*, the petitioners seek:
– To set aside the July 9, 2026 results to reflect them as having succeeded under the direct recruitment quota.
– A fresh, unbiased, and transparent evaluation process.
– Interim relief staying the current result.
– Directions barring the High Court from launching a new recruitment drive or filling any of the 113 vacancies until this case is resolved.
## Broader Implications & SEO-Relevant Keywords
The case raises critical issues in judicial recruitment reform, such as interview versus written exam weightage, transparency, and fairness in public service exams. These are key for stakeholders—law students, legal professionals, and policy makers. Related search topics likely to interest readers include:
– Judicial recruitment process reform
– Supreme Court oversight of High Court appointments
– Role of oral interviews in judge selection
– Transparency in public service examinations
– Direct recruitment quotas in judiciary jobs
It also emphasizes that systemic change could be in the works. The judiciary may reconsider how vacancies are advertised, examinations structured, and interviews conducted across all High Courts.
## Final Word
While the immediate case pertains to Gujarat High Court’s 113 District Judge vacancies, its ripple effects may prompt sweeping changes in India’s judicial recruitment norms. If the Supreme Court moves forward with its declared intent to reform the exam process, expect ongoing debates around recruitment rules, evaluation criteria, rigour of interviews, and safeguards against arbitrariness.
This article is AI-generated content. Please verify the information independently before taking any action based on this article.
