Legal Review and Analysis of High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Anr vs Jyotsna Dohalia & Anr 2025 INSC 1137
1. Heading of the Judgment
Case Title: High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. vs. Jyotsna Dohalia & Anr.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1137
Court: Supreme Court of India
Civil Appeal No.: ……… of 2025 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21353 of 2024)
Date of Judgment: September 23, 2025
Judges: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar (Author)
2. Related Laws and Rules
The judgment primarily interprets and deals with the following legal framework:
The Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994: Specifically, the amendment to Rule 7 introduced on 23.06.2023, which prescribed stringent eligibility criteria (minimum marks in the first attempt and a minimum period of practice) for candidates applying for the post of Civil Judge (Entry Level).
Principles Governing Review Jurisdiction: The judgment extensively relies on the legal principles delineated in precedents such as:
Northern India Caterers vs. Governor of Delhi (1980) 2 SCC 167
Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati (2013) 8 SCC 320
Canara Bank vs. Debasis Das (2003) 4 SCC 557
3. Basic Judgment Details
This appeal was filed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh (the recruiting authority) against an order dated 13.06.2024 passed by a Division Bench of the same High Court in a review petition. The Supreme Court's judgment arises from a special leave petition (SLP) challenging the High Court's exercise of its review power.
4. Core Principle and In-Depth Analysis of the Judgment
A. The Central Issue: Scope and Limits of Review Jurisdiction
The core legal issue addressed by the Supreme Court was whether the Madhya Pradesh High Court, in exercising its review jurisdiction, had overstepped its legal boundaries by effectively acting as an appellate court and re-adjudicating matters already decided in the original writ petition.
B. Factual Backdrop Leading to the Dispute
The dispute originated from an advertisement dated 17.11.2023 for recruiting Civil Judges. The amended Rule 7 of the 1994 Rules, which set higher eligibility standards, was challenged. The Supreme Court, in an interim order in a related case (Monica Yadav vs. High Court of MP), allowed all candidates (both eligible under the old and new rules) to participate provisionally, subject to the final outcome of the legal challenge.
The respondents (Jyotsna Dohalia and another) participated in the preliminary examination but scored 112 and 108 marks respectively, falling short of the cut-off of 113 marks. Their writ petition, challenging the result and seeking a re-computation of the cut-off after excluding ineligible candidates, was dismissed by the High Court on 07.05.2024. The Court held that since they did not meet the cut-off, they could not proceed to the main examination.
Subsequently, the respondents filed a review petition. The High Court, in its impugned order dated 13.06.2024, allowed the review. It directed the recruiting authority to:
Exclude all candidates who were ineligible as per the amended rules.
Re-compute the cut-off marks based on the 1:10 ratio (candidates to vacancies).
Conduct a fresh main examination for newly eligible candidates who would fall within the revised cut-off.
C. Supreme Court's Analysis and Reasoning
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's review order, providing a clear analysis of the law on review jurisdiction:
Review is not an Appeal: The Court emphasized that a review petition is not a means to re-hear the case. Its purpose is limited to correcting an "error apparent on the face of the record." It cannot be used to re-argue a point that was already considered and rejected. The respondents' argument about the potential reduction in cut-off marks was a mere "apprehension" that had been expressly considered and rejected in the original judgment dated 07.05.2024. The review court essentially took a different view on the same facts, which is impermissible.
Absence of an "Error Apparent": The Supreme Court found no glaring error in the original order of 07.05.2024. The Single Judge had correctly reasoned that weeding out ineligible candidates after the main examination would not benefit those who never crossed the preliminary examination threshold. The review court's action was based on a different interpretation, which constitutes an error of judgment, not an error apparent warranting review.
Misplaced Reliance on Precedent: The Supreme Court distinguished the case of the physically impaired candidates, for whom a second main examination was conducted. That was a result of a separate judicial direction striking down a specific discriminatory rule. The scope of that exercise was distinct and confined to a specific category, and it could not be used as a precedent to justify a general re-opening of the entire recruitment process for all candidates.
Prejudice to Unheard Parties: The Court noted that the successful candidates from the preliminary examination were not made parties to the review petition. The impugned directions, which adversely affected their vested rights, were passed in their absence, violating principles of natural justice.
Resolution of the Core Apprehension: The appellants (High Court) filed an affidavit stating unequivocally that no ineligible candidate would be called for the interview even if they had cleared the main written exam. This assurance directly addressed and nullified the respondents' foundational apprehension that ineligible candidates would be appointed.
5. Final Outcome and Supreme Court's Directions
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and issued the following directions:
The impugned order dated 13.06.2024 passed by the High Court in exercise of its review jurisdiction is set aside.
The review petition (No. 620 of 2024) filed by the respondents (Jyotsna Dohalia & Anr.) stands dismissed.
The appellants (High Court of MP) are directed to conclude the recruitment process initiated vide advertisement dated 17.11.2023 at the earliest.
6. MCQs Based on the Judgment
Question 1 In High Court of Madhya Pradesh vs. Jyotsna Dohalia, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's review order primarily on the ground that:?
(a) The amended Rule 7 of the 1994 Rules was unconstitutional.
(b) The review jurisdiction was exercised beyond its permissible scope by re-adjudicating the matter.
(c) The respondents had secured marks above the prescribed cut-off.
(d) The recruitment process had already been completed.
Answer: (b) The review jurisdiction was exercised beyond its permissible scope by re-adjudicating the matter.
Question 2 According to the Supreme Court's judgment, a review petition is maintainable only to correct:?
(a) Any error of law, whether apparent or not.
(b) An error apparent on the face of the record.
(c) A decision that seems unfair to a party.
(d) Findings of fact that could have been better appreciated.
Answer: (b) An error apparent on the face of the record.