Background of the Case
The Bombay High Court decided two connected writ petitions challenging the Maharashtra Public Service Commission's (MPSC) corrigendum dated October 23, 2026, concerning recruitment to the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate First Class.
The petitioners, Satish Maulyawan Patole and Jinesh Jitendra Koli, had obtained their law degrees in June 2026 and enrolled as advocates with the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa on June 20, 2026.
They sought permission to participate in the Civil Judge Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class Preliminary Examination-2024, notified through Advertisement No. 013/2026. They contended that the Supreme Court's directions in Bhumika Trust v. Union of India permitted all law graduates to participate in judicial recruitment during the transitional period, irrespective of when they obtained their degrees.
Supreme Court's Decision on the Practice Requirement
The controversy arose from the Supreme Court's judgment dated May 20, 2025, in All India Judges Association v. Union of India, which restored the requirement of a minimum of three years' legal practice for candidates seeking appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division).
The requirement had originally been introduced through the Supreme Court's judgment in All India Judges' Association v. Union of India, (1993) 4 SCC 288. However, it was subsequently done away with in the 2002 decision in All India Judges' Association v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 247, following recommendations concerning judicial recruitment and training.
In its May 2025 judgment, the Supreme Court reconsidered the issue and held that practical exposure to court proceedings was necessary before a person assumed judicial responsibilities. It accordingly directed the restoration of the three-year practice requirement.
The matter was subsequently reconsidered in Bhumika Trust v. Union of India, decided on August 21, 2026. The Supreme Court retained the underlying requirement of practical exposure but introduced transitional arrangements to address the difficulties faced by law graduates following the sudden restoration of the eligibility condition.
Transitional Arrangements in Bhumika Trust
The Supreme Court prescribed separate arrangements for recruitment notifications issued during the transitional period, extending up to March 31, 2027, and those issued thereafter.
Under paragraph 73(i), all law graduates were permitted to apply during the transitional period notwithstanding the three-year practice requirement. The Court also provided that candidates covered by the transitional arrangement would be deemed to have completed one year of active practice, without having to produce a separate Certificate of Practice for that deemed period.
The transitional arrangement further contemplated that selected candidates would initially be appointed as Trainee Judicial Officers and undergo one year of intensive training at the State Judicial Academy.
This would be followed by one year of structured Law Clerkship, comprising six months under the supervision of a Principal District Judge, District and Sessions Judge or a member of the Higher Judicial Services, and another six months under a sitting High Court Judge.
Both the institutional training and Law Clerkship would count towards the remaining practice requirement. Candidates would be appointed to regular judicial posts upon successfully completing the prescribed training and receiving a satisfactory evaluation.
For recruitment notifications issued on or after April 1, 2027, paragraph 74 prescribes a different arrangement. Candidates must possess at least one year of actual legal practice, supported by the prescribed certification and verification of their participation in effective judicial proceedings.
MPSC's Corrigendum and the Challenge
Following the Supreme Court's decision, the MPSC issued a corrigendum dated October 23, 2026, modifying its earlier recruitment advertisement dated April 30, 2026.
The corrigendum permitted law graduates who had obtained their degrees before August 22, 2025, to submit applications, subject to compliance with the other eligibility conditions.
It also provided that the specified law graduates, along with other eligible candidates who had not completed three years of actual legal practice, would be deemed to have completed one year of active practice.
Applications under the corrigendum were invited between October 26 and November 9, 2026.
The petitioners challenged the restriction based on the date of obtaining the law degree. They contended that the Supreme Court had expressly used the expression "All law graduates" in paragraph 73(i) of Bhumika Trust and had not created any distinction between graduates who obtained their degrees before and after August 22, 2025.
According to them, the MPSC had incorrectly interpreted the Supreme Court's directions by creating two separate categories of law graduates. They further argued that the directions issued by the Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution were binding on the Commission and could not be restricted through a subsequent corrigendum.
It was also pointed out that the Manipur High Court had taken a view permitting fresh law graduates to participate in the recruitment process.
Arguments Opposing the Petitions
The submissions made on behalf of the High Court administration and adopted by the MPSC supported the validity of the corrigendum.
It was argued that the fundamental principles underlying the Supreme Court's restoration of the practice requirement in the 2025 All India Judges' Association judgment had not been reversed in Bhumika Trust.
The Supreme Court had merely introduced transitional arrangements to ensure fairness to candidates affected by the sudden restoration of the requirement. The corrigendum, therefore, correctly implemented the directions issued by the Supreme Court.
Bombay High Court's Observations
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sarang V. Kotwal and Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale examined the relevant directions in Bhumika Trust, particularly paragraphs 66 to 74.
The High Court observed that the Supreme Court had consistently recognised the importance of prior exposure to the functioning of courts for persons aspiring to become judicial officers.
Referring to the Supreme Court's earlier decision restoring the practice requirement, the Bench noted that practical experience enables prospective judges to understand courtroom functioning, judicial responsibilities and the consequences of judicial orders.
The High Court relied on the following observations in Bhumika Trust:
"Such exposure may contribute to the development of judicial temperament, patience, empathy, courtroom discipline and an appreciation of the respective roles of the Bench and the Bar."
The Bench emphasised that the Supreme Court had not abandoned the requirement of practical experience. Its intervention was primarily intended to ensure that the requirement was implemented fairly during the transitional period.
Meaning of the Expression 'Such Candidates'
The central question before the High Court was whether the expression "All law graduates" in paragraph 73(i) independently conferred the benefit of deemed completion of one year of practice upon every person who obtained a law degree during the transitional period.
The Court examined the second part of the same direction, which stated that, considering more than one year had elapsed since the judgment restoring the practice requirement, "such candidates" would be deemed to have completed one year of active practice.
According to the Bench, the two parts of paragraph 73(i) could not be read independently. The direction had to be understood in its entirety and in the context of the transitional circumstances considered by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court had proceeded on the basis that, during the preceding year, most law graduates would have engaged in legal practice, worked as Law Clerks or acquired relevant experience in law firms. It considered such experience sufficient to justify a one-time deemed credit of one year.
Consequently, the Bombay High Court held that the deemed one-year practice benefit could not be extended indiscriminately to every person who obtained a law degree during the transitional period.
Distinction Between Law Graduates and Candidates Rejected
The petitioners had also attempted to distinguish between the expressions "Law Graduates" and "candidates" used in paragraphs 73 and 74 of the Supreme Court's judgment.
The High Court rejected this interpretation.
It observed that paragraph 74 expressly required every candidate seeking appointment as Civil Judge (Junior Division), under the recruitment framework applicable from April 1, 2027, to possess at least one year of actual legal practice.
The Bench considered this provision significant because it demonstrated that the Supreme Court had retained the requirement of actual professional experience, while providing a limited transitional concession.
The Court therefore declined to interpret paragraph 73(i) as an unrestricted exemption from the practice requirement.
High Court's Final Decision
The Bombay High Court concluded that the MPSC had correctly understood and implemented the Supreme Court's directions in Bhumika Trust.
It held that the corrigendum dated October 23, 2026, did not warrant judicial interference and was consistent with the transitional framework prescribed by the Supreme Court.
Finding no merit in either petition, the Bench dismissed both writ petitions and discharged the Rule.
The decision clarifies that the deemed completion of one year of active legal practice under the transitional arrangement cannot be treated as a blanket exemption available to every fresh law graduate. The distinction based on the date of obtaining the law degree was upheld in the context of the recruitment process before the Court.
Case Details
Case Name: Satish Maulyawan Patole v. State of Maharashtra and Others; Jinesh Jitendra Koli v. State of Maharashtra and Others
Court: Bombay High Court
Date of Decision: November 5, 2026
Case Number: Writ Petition Nos. 15159 and 15160 of 2026
Coram/Judge: Justice Sarang V. Kotwal and Justice Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale
