The Supreme Court has permitted candidates whose applications for the Uttar Pradesh Higher Judicial Service (HJS) Mains examination were rejected solely on the procedural ground of non-forwarding through the District Judge or competent authority to appear in the Mains examination scheduled for August 1 and 2, 2026, subject to the outcome of the pending petition, expressing strong reservations about the insistence on “hyper-technical” procedural requirements that deny otherwise eligible candidates an opportunity to compete.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana passed the order on June 15, 2026 in Jitendra Kumar v. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench & Ors. [Diary No. 6564/2026], while hearing a challenge to the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature for the UP HJS Mains despite his having qualified in the preliminary examination. The matter has been posted for further hearing on July 15, 2026.
Background
The petitioner Jitendra Kumar had appeared in and qualified the UP Higher Judicial Service preliminary examination. However, his candidature for the Mains examination was rejected on the ground that his application had not been forwarded through the District Judge or the competent authority, a procedural requirement under the applicable recruitment rules. The Mains examination was scheduled for August 1 and 2, 2026, making the timeline urgent.
The petitioner challenged the rejection before the Supreme Court, contending that the denial of an opportunity to appear in the Mains on such a procedural footing, despite having cleared the preliminary examination on merit, was unjust and disproportionate. It was submitted that the requirement of forwarding through the competent authority is a procedural formality that should not operate as an absolute bar to a candidate who has otherwise demonstrated eligibility.
Court’s Observations
The bench expressed pointed reservations about the continued insistence on procedural requirements of this nature in the context of competitive examinations. The Chief Justice observed that such procedures were outdated and that the proper sequence in any recruitment process should place substantive verification at the end of the process rather than as a preliminary hurdle:
“These are procedures from 50 years back, and we are still following them. In a competitive world, you first conduct the exam, then the mains, then interviews, and verification can come later.”
The Court further made clear that rejecting a candidate’s candidature at the threshold on purely technical grounds relating to the signature or endorsement of a superior authority was constitutionally disproportionate:
“On such hyper technical grounds that the District Judge has not signed or should have signed, you cannot deny a candidate.”
The Order
Taking note of the submissions and the urgency of the matter given the approaching examination dates, the Court issued notice and directed that the petitioner and similarly placed candidates whose applications had been rejected on the same procedural ground be permitted to appear in the UP HJS Mains examination on August 1 and 2, 2026. The Court clarified that such participation would be conditional upon and subject to the final outcome of the writ petition.
Case Details
Case Title: Jitendra Kumar v. The Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench & Ors.
Case Number: Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 6564/2026
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice V. Mohana
Date of Order: June 15, 2026
Next Date: July 15, 2026
Petitioner’s Counsel: Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, AOR
Examination: UP Higher Judicial Service (HJS) Mains Examination, August 1-2, 2026
