2026 INSC 699
Manoj Goyal v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors.
HEAD NOTES
A. Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 — Rule 41 — Viva-voce qualifying marks — Validity.
(Paras 17–19, 28–31)
Held, prescription of minimum qualifying marks in the viva-voce for recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service is within the rule-making competence of the State and the High Court. Such requirement is neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional, being rationally connected with assessment of suitability for judicial office.
B. Judicial Service Recruitment — Shetty Commission Recommendations — Legal status.
(Paras 17–18)
Held, recommendations of the Shetty Commission, though accepted by the Supreme Court, are essentially guiding principles. Once statutory recruitment rules are validly framed by the competent authority, the selection process must be governed by those statutory rules unless declared unconstitutional.
C. Recruitment Process — Participation without protest — Doctrine of Estoppel.
(Paras 20–23, 30)
Held, a candidate who knowingly participates in a selection process under existing recruitment rules and takes a calculated chance cannot, after being unsuccessful, challenge the very rules governing the selection. The principle of approbation and reprobation squarely applies.
D. Judicial Review — Completed Selection — Finality of Appointments.
(Paras 24–29)
Held, courts should be slow to unsettle appointments that have attained finality, particularly after long lapse of time. Granting retrospective appointments or seniority would seriously prejudice serving judicial officers, disturb settled service conditions and create administrative uncertainty.
E. Service Law — Subsequent deletion of impugned Rule — Effect.
(Paras 15–16, 28)
Held, where the impugned statutory provision has subsequently been deleted and the recruitment process has long since concluded, the constitutional challenge may become academic, particularly when no effective relief can be granted without unsettling vested rights.
F. Judicial Appointments — Viva-voce — Importance.
(Paras 19)
Held, for appointments to Higher Judicial Service, the interview is an indispensable component for evaluating qualities such as judicial temperament, alertness, resourcefulness, leadership, communication skills and decision-making ability, which cannot be adequately assessed through written examinations alone.
G. Relief — Retrospective appointment — Refusal.
(Paras 24–29)
Held, retrospective appointment and consequential seniority cannot be granted where doing so would reopen a decade-old recruitment process, prejudice numerous serving judicial officers, disturb settled seniority and generate avoidable litigation.
Analysis of Facts
The appellant participated in the recruitment process for appointment as Additional District Judge under the advocates' quota pursuant to the amended Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010.
Originally, Rule 41 did not prescribe any minimum qualifying marks in the interview. However, before the fresh recruitment process commenced, the Rule was amended in 2011 requiring every candidate to secure at least 25% marks in the viva-voce.
The appellant successfully cleared the written examination and secured higher aggregate marks than several selected candidates. However, he obtained only 7 out of 30 marks in the interview, falling short of the prescribed qualifying benchmark of 7.5 marks. Consequently, he was excluded from the select list.
He challenged the constitutional validity of the amended Rule and sought appointment based on aggregate marks. During pendency of the proceedings, the State deleted the impugned proviso in 2017. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the challenge had become academic and that the completed appointments could not be disturbed.
The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that the interview benchmark was a valid statutory requirement, the appellant was estopped from challenging the Rules after participating in the selection process, and no relief could be granted after more than a decade without seriously disrupting the judicial service.
Analysis of Law
The Supreme Court laid down the following principles:
Recruitment to Higher Judicial Service is governed by statutory service rules framed by the competent authority.
Recommendations of the Shetty Commission operate as guiding principles and do not override subsequently enacted statutory rules.
Prescription of minimum qualifying marks in viva-voce is a valid method of assessing suitability for judicial office.
Candidates who participate in the selection process without objection cannot subsequently challenge the governing recruitment rules after failing in the selection.
Courts should preserve finality of completed recruitment processes and avoid disturbing settled appointments after considerable lapse of time.
Retrospective appointments affecting seniority and service structure should not ordinarily be granted where they would prejudice vested rights of existing officers.
Practical consequences and administrative stability are relevant considerations while exercising judicial review in service matters.
Ratio Decidendi
Prescription of minimum qualifying marks in the viva-voce for recruitment to the Higher Judicial Service is within the statutory competence of the rule-making authority and constitutes a valid criterion for assessing judicial suitability. A candidate who participates in the recruitment process with full knowledge of such rules is estopped from challenging them after being unsuccessful. Courts should not unsettle completed judicial appointments or grant retrospective relief where such interference would disturb settled seniority, prejudice serving judicial officers and undermine administrative finality.
