Executive reservation policies are inapplicable to judicial recruitment unless specifically adopted by the High Court.

The petitioner challenged the selection process for Class-IV (Peon) positions in the Madhubani Judgeship initiated under Employment Notice No. 01/2016

She alleged that the select list dated 29.11.2016 was invalid because it failed to implement Bihar Government Resolution No. 963 dated 20.01.2016, which mandated 35% horizontal reservation for women in state services

The petitioner, an unreserved category candidate, also belatedly claimed reservation as a dependent of a freedom fighter during her interview on 31.07.2016, a claim not mentioned in her original application

The respondents contended that the recruitment was governed by the Bihar Civil Court Staff (Class III and Class IV) Rules, 2009, as resolved by the High Court's Standing Committee on 15.12.2015

They argued that the State Government’s 2016 reservation policy was not automatically applicable to the subordinate judiciary unless expressly adopted by the High Court

The court primarily relied on Article 235 of the Constitution of India, which vests administrative control of the subordinate judiciary in the High Court

It applied the doctrine of "legislation by incorporation" versus "legislation by reference" as established in Western Coalfields Ltd. v. Special Area Development Authority [(1982) 1 SCC 125] and State of Uttarakhand v. Mohan Singh [(2012) 13 SCC 281], holding that subsequent executive instructions do not automatically alter existing recruitment rules unless expressly incorporated

Regarding recruitment transparency, the court cited Renu Ors. v. District Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari [(2014) 14 SCC 50]

Finally, the court applied the principle of estoppel by participation from Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana [AIR 1987 SC 454], which bars unsuccessful candidates from challenging a selection process they voluntarily joined

The court reasoned that since the High Court's Standing Committee had specifically resolved to continue appointments under the 2009 Rules until new rules were finalized, the 2016 State Government Resolution did not apply as it had not been adopted by the High Court under its Article 235 powers

The court found that because the recruitment process began under the 2009 framework, the rules in force at the time of the advertisement governed the process, and the 2016 executive instruction could not retroactively alter those conditions

Regarding the interview-only method, the court held that while later rules (2017) introduced written exams, the 2009 Rules specifically permitted selection via interview; thus, in the absence of evidence of mala fides or arbitrariness, the process was valid

Furthermore, the court determined that the petitioner’s claim for freedom fighter reservation was unsustainable because it was not part of the original advertisement or her application

Most significantly, the court noted that the petitioner participated in the interview without raising any objection to the advertisement’s terms, thereby waiving her right to challenge the process after being unsuccessful

The court directly answered that the petitioner was precluded from challenging the process after participating in it and that her belated claim for freedom fighter reservation could not be entertained

All interim stays were vacated