High Courts maintain discretion to shorten recruitment timelines below the outer limits prescribed in Malik Mazhar Sultan.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Respondent was mandated to provide a minimum two-month preparation period between the application deadline and the examination date under the Malik Mazhar Sultan guidelines

The court held

The Court answered the issues in the negative, holding that the High Court maintains the discretion to shorten recruitment durations to meet judicial vacancy targets. The Court found no merit in the petition as the timelines followed were consistent with the "outer limits" principle established by the Supreme Court

It also directed

the writ petition and the pending application for a stay/extension were dismissed

01Facts

The petitioner challenged a notification dated 01.07.2026 issued by the Respondent for the Delhi Higher Judicial Service (DHJS) Examination, 2026.

p. 2

The petitioner had previously submitted a representation on 07.07.2026 requesting an extension of time for the submission of applications and the postponement of the preliminary examination

p. 2

The Respondent rejected this representation on 14.07.2026

p. 2

The petitioner contended that since the last date for applications was 15.07.2026, holding the examination on 26.07.2026 (a gap of only 11 days) violated the time schedule prescribed by the Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan

pp. 2-3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Respondent was mandated to provide a minimum two-month preparation period between the application deadline and the examination date under the Malik Mazhar Sultan guidelines

pp. 2-3

ii.2. Whether the High Court possesses the discretion to shorten the recruitment timelines prescribed by the Supreme Court to ensure the timely filling of judicial vacancies

pp. 3-4

03Law Applied

The court primarily applied the directives of the Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) v. U.P. Public Service Commission (2008), which established a schedule for judicial service examinations while specifically granting the Delhi High Court liberty to amend said schedule for its selection process

p. 3, para 6

It further relied on Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 2/2018, which clarified that the Malik Mazhar Sultan timelines indicate the "outer time-limit" rather than the minimum required period for completion

p. 3, para 7

Additionally, the court noted the mandatory nature of timelines for filling vacancies as directed in Rejanish K.V. v. K. Deepa and Ors. (2025), which led to the amendment of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service Rules, 1970

p. 4, para 9

04Reasoning

The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that a two-month preparation window is a mandatory right. It reasoned that the Supreme Court's guidelines in Malik Mazhar Sultan explicitly allow the Delhi High Court to adapt the schedule

p. 3, para 6

these timelines serve as maximum limits, not minimum buffers

p. 3, para 7

The Court observed that the Respondent had amended the DHJS Rules in February 2026 following Supreme Court orders to fill vacancies strictly

p. 4, para 9

approximately 1900 candidates had already received hall tickets and prepared to travel to Delhi; altering the date for a single petitioner would cause undue hardship and administrative chaos

p. 4, para 10