The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Gujarat High Court and the State Government in a writ petition filed under Article 32 challenging the recruitment process for Civil Judge (Junior Division). A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul Pancholi, issued the notice on February 26, 2026, returnable on March 12, 2026.
The petition, filed by twenty aggrieved candidates who appeared in the examination, describes the situation as “unusual” because the number of candidates shortlisted for viva-voce is lower than the total vacancies notified. This, they argue, defeats the purpose of a competitive selection where a broader pool enables meaningful merit comparison at the interview stage.
The recruitment drive began with an advertisement on January 30, 2025, notifying 212 vacancies for Civil Judge (Junior Division). The preliminary exam took place on June 29, 2025, with 829 candidates qualifying for the mains. The main written examination was conducted on October 12, 2025, and results were declared on January 22, 2026. Shockingly, only 211 candidates were declared qualified for viva-voce—leaving one vacancy unfilled at that stage—and the petitioners found themselves excluded.
The petitioners contend that shortlisting almost exactly the number of vacancies (or fewer) is irregular for judicial services recruitment. Normally, a significantly larger number of candidates advance to interviews to allow fair comparative evaluation of personality, knowledge, and suitability.
The plea also raises serious allegations regarding the main examination itself. It claims that one question in the Civil Law paper fell outside the notified syllabus—specifically concerning the effect of non-registration of compulsorily registrable documents. Another question was allegedly defective in framing, leading to ambiguity and potential prejudice to candidates.
In a high-stakes competitive exam where even marginal mark differences determine success, such flaws can materially impact outcomes, the petitioners argue. They assert that all candidates deserved corrective measures, such as grace marks, to neutralize the prejudice caused by out-of-syllabus or faulty questions.
Further, the petition criticizes the evaluation process for lacking transparency and moderation. It alleges an unusually strict marking pattern that resulted in the exclusion of several meritorious candidates who had previously cleared interviews in earlier recruitment cycles.
The Gujarat High Court had already commenced viva-voce interviews from February 2 to February 25, 2026, adding urgency to the challenge.
Seeking intervention, the petitioners have prayed for directions to re-evaluate answer scripts, grant relief for the defective/out-of-syllabus questions, and examine whether the entire evaluation framework complies with constitutional principles of fairness, transparency, and equal opportunity in public employment under Articles 14 and 16.
The petitioners were represented by Senior Advocate PS Patwalia, Advocate-on-Record Nisarg Choudhary, Advocates Ravish Kumar, and Prashant Karan.
Case Title: Ruchi Sharma and Others v. High Court of Gujarat and Others | WP(C) No. 259/2026
Click HERE to access the order.
Lawcutor 