Supreme Court Reins in Review Powers: MP High Court’s Order Directing Fresh Judicial Exam Quashed
Case Name: High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Another v. Jyotsna Dohalia & Another
Citation: 2025 INSC 1137
Date of Judgment: 23 September 2025
Bench: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar (DB)
Held: The Supreme Court held that the Madhya Pradesh High Court had exceeded its review jurisdiction by recalling its earlier order and directing a fresh main examination for Civil Judge (Entry Level) recruitment. Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to re-examine issues already considered and rejected, particularly where no error apparent on the face of the record exists. The Court emphasized that such exercise is impermissible as it substitutes appellate power for review.
Summary: The controversy stemmed from amendments made to Rule 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, which tightened eligibility norms by requiring either three years of continuous practice or high academic marks obtained at the first attempt. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 17 November 2023 for 199 posts of Civil Judge (Entry Level), the respondents participated but fell short of the cut-off marks in the preliminary examination. Their writ petition challenging the result was dismissed on 7 May 2024, with the Division Bench of the High Court holding that since they had not achieved the benchmark, they were ineligible to sit for the mains.
Subsequently, the respondents filed a review petition, claiming that ineligible candidates had been allowed to appear in the preliminary exam and that exclusion of such candidates would lower the cut-off, enabling them to qualify. On 13 June 2024, the High Court allowed the review, recalled its earlier order, and directed exclusion of ineligible candidates, re-computation of cut-off marks, and conduct of a fresh main examination. This order stalled the recruitment process.
On appeal, the Supreme Court noted that the respondents’ plea of re-computation had already been considered and rejected in the earlier writ petition. It observed that review cannot be used as a disguised appeal and cited Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (1980) 2 SCC 167 and Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013) 8 SCC 320 to reiterate that review is confined to correcting patent errors. The Court further noted that the apprehension of ineligible candidates securing appointment was unfounded, as the High Court itself had clarified in an affidavit that no ineligible candidate would be called for interview. The direction to hold a third main examination was thus unjustified and prejudicial to other candidates, especially since the recruitment process had been ongoing since 2023.
Decision: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s review order dated 13 June 2024 and dismissed Review Petition No. 620 of 2024 filed by the respondents. It directed the Madhya Pradesh High Court to complete the recruitment process initiated under the advertisement dated 17 November 2023 at the earliest, with each party bearing its own costs.