The Supreme Court has upheld the validity of the Rajasthan High Court’s decision refusing to interfere with the selection process for the appointment of Additional District Judges under the advocates’ quota. The Court ruled that a candidate who voluntarily participates in a recruitment process cannot subsequently challenge the selection criteria after being declared unsuccessful.

A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale dismissed the appeal filed by Manoj Goyal, who had challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 41 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, as amended in 2011. The impugned amendment required candidates to secure a minimum of 25% marks in the viva-voce (interview) to qualify for appointment as Additional District Judges. The Court affirmed the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment and held that the recruitment process, conducted under the statutory rules prevailing at the relevant time, could not be reopened more than a decade after the appointments had been finalized.

Buy Now: Supreme court Judgements E-Compilation – JUNE 2026

The litigation arose out of the recruitment process initiated for filling posts of Additional District Judges from the advocates’ quota in Rajasthan. Originally, the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, did not prescribe any minimum qualifying marks in the viva-voce, in line with the recommendations of the Shetty Commission, which had advocated that judicial appointments should be based on aggregate marks obtained in the written examination and interview without imposing a separate interview cut-off.

However, before the fresh recruitment process commenced following cancellation of an earlier selection, the State Government amended Rule 41 on June 10, 2011. The amendment introduced a proviso mandating that candidates must secure at least 25% marks in the interview to be recommended for appointment.

The appellant participated in the recruitment under these amended rules. He scored 161 marks in the written examination and an aggregate of 168 marks, which placed him 11th on overall merit against 39 vacancies. Nevertheless, he received only seven marks out of 30 in the viva-voce, falling short of the prescribed minimum by merely half a mark. As a result, despite securing a higher aggregate than some selected candidates, he was declared ineligible for appointment solely because he failed to clear the interview benchmark.

The appellant initially approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 challenging both the validity of the amended Rule 41 and the select list. Subsequently, he withdrew the petition with liberty to approach the Rajasthan High Court.

Before the High Court, he argued that the introduction of the interview cut-off violated the recommendations of the Shetty Commission as approved by the Supreme Court in All India Judges Association v. Union of India. He also contended that the amendment was arbitrary, unconstitutional, and retrospectively altered the rules governing vacancies that had arisen earlier.

During the pendency of the proceedings, however, the State Government again amended the Rules in November 2017 and deleted the controversial interview cut-off. The Rajasthan High Court consequently held that examining the constitutional validity of a provision that no longer existed had become merely an academic exercise and declined to disturb appointments that had already attained finality.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court’s reasoning and held that the challenge to the finalized appointments had already attained finality through earlier judicial proceedings. It observed that the subsequent withdrawal of the writ petition did not revive the challenge against appointments that had already been consciously declined by the Court.

The Bench further rejected the appellant’s contention that the Shetty Commission recommendations prohibited any interview cut-off. According to the Court, those recommendations serve only as guiding principles and do not override statutory recruitment rules framed by the competent authority. Once valid statutory rules are enacted, recruitment authorities are bound to conduct selections strictly in accordance with those rules.

The Court emphasized that recruitment to the post of Additional District Judge involves appointment to a constitutional office demanding far more than academic proficiency.

While written examinations assess legal knowledge, the Bench observed that interviews evaluate qualities indispensable for judicial service, including alertness, resourcefulness, judgment, dependability, communication skills, and decision-making ability. Prescribing a minimum qualifying benchmark in the viva-voce was therefore neither arbitrary nor unreasonable but represented a legitimate mechanism to ensure that only suitable candidates entered the higher judiciary.

A central aspect of the judgment is the Court’s reiteration of the settled doctrine that candidates cannot challenge recruitment rules after participating in the selection process with full knowledge of those rules.

The Bench relied upon several earlier decisions, including Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, Madan Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, and Dhananjay Malik v. State of Uttaranchal, to hold that a candidate who willingly takes a calculated chance under existing recruitment criteria is estopped from questioning those very criteria after failing to qualify.

Since the appellant appeared for both the written examination and the interview under the amended Rules without raising any objection, the Court held that he could not subsequently assail the interview cut-off merely because he failed to secure the prescribed qualifying marks.

The Supreme Court also highlighted the serious administrative consequences that would follow if relief were granted.

The selected candidates had been serving as Additional District Judges since 2013, and disturbing their appointments after more than a decade would disrupt the settled seniority structure within the judicial service. The Court observed that granting retrospective appointment and consequential seniority to the appellant would unfairly prejudice serving judicial officers and could trigger a flood of similar claims from other unsuccessful candidates who had accepted the results of the recruitment process.

Describing such a course as opening a “Pandora’s box,” the Bench stressed that certainty and finality are essential principles governing public appointments and judicial administration.

Dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the Rajasthan High Court’s judgment and concluded that the interview cut-off introduced in 2011 was a valid statutory requirement during the relevant recruitment process. It held that the appellant acquired no vested right to appointment merely because he secured higher aggregate marks than certain selected candidates, having failed to achieve the mandatory qualifying marks in the viva-voce.

The ruling reinforces two well-established principles of service jurisprudence: statutory recruitment rules prevail over non-binding policy recommendations, and candidates who participate in a recruitment process without objection cannot later challenge the rules after an unsuccessful outcome.

Membership Required to Access Case Details & Order Copy

To view the complete Case Details and Download Order Copy, you must have an active membership. Please subscribe to continue.

Read More: Absconding Accused Can’t Escape Trial by Delaying Arrest: Supreme Court