Can a Candidate Challenge Minimum Viva-Voce Marks After Participating in the Selection Process? Supreme Court Answers

Case Name: Manoj Goyal v. Rajasthan High Court & Others

Date of Judgment: 13 July 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 699 | Civil Appeal No. 8142 of 2018

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale

Held: The Supreme Court held that a candidate who participates in a selection process with full knowledge of the applicable rules cannot subsequently challenge those rules after being declared unsuccessful. The Court further held that prescribing minimum qualifying marks in the viva-voce for recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service was within the rule-making authority’s competence and that the validity of the deleted rule had become academic after its subsequent removal.

Summary: The appellant participated in the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service recruitment for the post of Additional District Judge. Although he secured higher aggregate marks than some selected candidates, he failed to obtain the minimum 25% qualifying marks in the viva-voce, resulting in his exclusion from the final select list. He challenged the constitutional validity of the amended Rule 41 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, which prescribed the interview cut-off.

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed the writ petition, observing that the challenged provision had already been deleted by a subsequent amendment and that the completed appointments could not be disturbed. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that the interview cut-off was contrary to the recommendations accepted in All India Judges Association v. Union of India and that vacancies ought to have been filled under the unamended Rules.

Rejecting the challenge, the Supreme Court held that the Shetty Commission’s recommendations were only guiding principles and did not override statutory rules validly framed by the State. The Court further observed that the appellant had knowingly participated in the recruitment process under the amended Rules and was therefore estopped from challenging them after failing to qualify. It also emphasized that reopening a recruitment process concluded more than a decade ago would unsettle the seniority and service conditions of serving judicial officers.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court. It held that the appellant had no enforceable right to appointment and refused to interfere with the finalized selection process or disturb appointments made pursuant to the 2011 recruitment.