The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its review jurisdiction by re-adjudicating matters already decided in the original writ petition. The Court reiterated that review is not an appeal and cannot be invoked to re-examine a contention merely because a different view is possible. The scope of review is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record.
Facts Of The Case:
The Madhya Pradesh High Court issued an advertisement for recruiting Civil Judges (Entry Level) under amended rules that prescribed new eligibility criteria. The respondents, Jyotsna Dohalia and another, participated in the preliminary examination but failed to secure the cut-off marks of 113. Their writ petition challenging the result was dismissed by the High Court on May 7, 2024, which held that not meeting the cut-off disqualified them from the main examination. Subsequently, the respondents filed a review petition. In its impugned order dated June 13, 2024, a Division Bench of the High Court exercised its review jurisdiction to recall the dismissal order. It directed the exclusion of ineligible candidates who had been provisionally allowed to take the preliminary exam, the re-computation of the cut-off marks, and the holding of a fresh main examination for candidates who would now qualify under the new cut-off. The High Court, through its Registrar General, appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that this direction amounted to an impermissible re-evaluation of the original decision under the guise of a review, especially since the recruitment process was for 2022 vacancies and was significantly delayed.
Procedural History:
The procedural history of this case commenced with the respondents filing a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, challenging the results of the preliminary examination for the recruitment of Civil Judges. This writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on May 7, 2024. Subsequently, the respondents filed a review petition. In an order dated June 13, 2024, a Division Bench of the High Court allowed this review, recalled its earlier dismissal order, and issued directions for re-computing cut-off marks and conducting a fresh main examination. Aggrieved by this order, the appellants, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP(C) No. 21353 of 2024) before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted leave, stayed the operation of the impugned review order, and after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal, thereby setting aside the High Court’s review order and restoring the position after the dismissal of the original writ petition.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Clarifies: No Service Tax Exemption for Handling Export Cargo at Airports
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had exceeded the limited scope of its review jurisdiction. It noted that the review power is not a tool to re-adjudicate issues or substitute an earlier view with a different one, but is confined to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. The Court found that the respondents’ contention regarding the re-computation of cut-off marks, which was based on mere apprehension, had already been expressly considered and rejected in the original order dismissing their writ petition. By re-examining the same issue and arriving at a contrary conclusion, the High Court had effectively acted as an appellate authority, which was impermissible in a review proceeding. The Court also held that the circumstance of a second examination being held for physically impaired candidates was distinct and could not form a valid basis for the impugned direction to conduct a third examination.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order dated June 13, 2024, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in exercise of its review jurisdiction. The Court held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by re-adjudicating matters already decided in the original writ petition, which is not permissible in a review. Consequently, the review petition filed by the respondents (Jyotsna Dohalia & Anr.) was dismissed. The Supreme Court directed the appellant (High Court of Madhya Pradesh) to conclude the recruitment process initiated pursuant to the advertisement dated November 17, 2023, at the earliest. No order as to costs was made.
Case Details:
Case Title: High Court of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. Vs. Jyotsna Dohalia & Anr. CITATION: 2025 INSC 1137 Appeal Number:(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 21353 of 2024) Date of Judgement: September 23, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Download The Judgement Here