Supreme Court Upholds Minimum Viva Voce Cut-Off for District Judge Recruitment in Rajasthan

In Manoj Goyal v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. (2026 LiveLaw (SC) 695 / 2026 INSC 699), the Supreme Court upheld the validity of a minimum cut-off in the interview component of district judge recruitment, dismissing the appeal of a candidate who fell short of the 25 percent threshold by a mere 0.50 marks. A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B. Varale, in a judgment delivered on July 13, 2026, held that statutory rules prescribing interview cut-offs prevail over non-binding recommendations, and that candidates who participate in a selection process under existing rules cannot challenge those rules after failing to qualify.

Facts and Procedural History

The case arose from the recruitment process for Additional District Judges under the advocates' quota in the State of Rajasthan. The Rajasthan High Court issued an advertisement notifying 36 vacancies for the post of Additional District Judge. The selection process comprised a written examination followed by a viva voce (interview), governed by Rule 41 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, which prescribed a minimum cut-off of 25 percent marks in the interview.

The appellant, Manoj Goyal, performed well in the written examination, scoring 161 out of 250, which translated to 64.4 percent. However, in the viva voce, he was awarded only 7 marks out of 30. Since the rules required a minimum of 25 percent in the interview (7.5 out of 30), Goyal fell short of the threshold by 0.50 marks and was not selected. He challenged the constitutional validity of Rule 41 before the Rajasthan High Court, which dismissed his petition. He then appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Legal Challenge

Goyal's primary argument was that imposing a minimum cut-off in the viva voce was arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality and equal opportunity in public employment. He relied on the recommendations of the Shetty Commission (Second National Judicial Pay Commission), which had recommended that no minimum marks should be prescribed for the interview in judicial service recruitment. The commission had suggested that the interview should serve as a qualitative assessment rather than an eliminatory filter.

The appellant also contended that the viva voce process was inherently subjective and that imposing a minimum cut-off amplified the risk of arbitrary exclusion. He pointed out that his strong performance in the written examination, which is objective and verifiable, should not have been overridden by a subjective assessment. The tension between objective written examinations and subjective interview assessments has been a recurring concern in public recruitment, as seen in debates around qualifying standards for professional examinations such as the AIBE, where BCI recently adjusted qualifying marks.

Supreme Court's Reasoning

Justice Sanjay Karol, writing for the bench, held that the challenge to the vires of Rule 41 was rendered academic by its subsequent deletion. The amended rules no longer contain the specific provision that Goyal challenged, but the appointments made under the erstwhile rules had already been finalised and could not be disturbed.

On the substantive question, the Court held that a rule prescribing a minimum cut-off in the interview was well within the legislative competence of the State. The Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules are framed under Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution, which vest the power of appointment of district judges in the Governor in consultation with the High Court. The State is entitled to prescribe qualifications, eligibility criteria, and selection standards, including minimum thresholds for each stage of the recruitment process.

The Court further held that statutory rules prevail over the recommendations of the Shetty Commission. The Commission's suggestions are advisory in nature and do not have the force of law. Where a validly enacted rule prescribes a specific requirement, that requirement must be complied with, irrespective of what a commission may have recommended. This principle aligns with the Supreme Court's approach to judicial review of recruitment standards and examination challenges.

The Principle of Acquiescence

A significant aspect of the judgment was the Court's application of the principle of acquiescence. Justice Karol held that candidates who participate in a selection process under existing rules, with full knowledge of the applicable criteria, cannot subsequently challenge those rules after failing to qualify. By sitting for the examination and appearing for the viva voce, the appellant had accepted the framework within which the selection was being conducted. His subsequent challenge, mounted only because he did not meet the cut-off, was not maintainable.

This principle has been consistently applied by the Supreme Court in the context of public examinations and recruitment processes. The Court has maintained that allowing candidates to participate and then challenge the rules upon failure would create uncertainty and undermine the integrity of the selection process. The legal profession's own regulatory standards have been a topic of Supreme Court scrutiny, including through its recent notice on a PIL seeking regulation of advocates' social media advertising. The broader principle regarding the limits of judicial review under certiorari jurisdiction also applies in such contexts.

Related Reading

Delhi High Court designates 85 advocates as senior advocates under the Advocates Act

How to file a complaint against an advocate with the Bar Council in India

Supreme Court's direction on same-day communication of bail orders to jail authorities

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court upheld the 25 percent minimum interview cut-off in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, dismissing the appeal of Manoj Goyal who fell short by 0.50 marks.

Statutory rules framed under Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution prevail over advisory recommendations of the Shetty Commission.

Candidates who participate in a selection process under existing rules with full knowledge of the criteria cannot challenge those rules after failing to qualify.

The viva voce cut-off was held to be within the State's legislative competence and rationally connected to the objective of selecting capable judicial officers.

The judgment reinforces the principle that finalised appointments made under validly enacted rules will not be disturbed by courts.