Prescribing Minimum Marks In Judiciary Exam Necessary, Otherwise Standards Will Be Diluted: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today said that that minimum marks  prescribed for qualifying district judiciary exam is "is permissible for adjudging the qualities and capacities of the candidate seeking an appointment to judiciary."

The candidates in the Haryana District judiciary exam were required to secure at least  50% i.e 500 marks out of the 1000 aggregate marks in the written test and viva voce.

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel said, “There is no gainsaying that it may be necessary in view of the fact that it is imperative that only persons with a prescribed minimum of said qualities/capacities should be selected, as otherwise the standard of judiciary would get diluted and sub-standard candidates may get selected."

The bench further explained that, it falls squarely within the prerogative of the selecting authority to stipulate criteria that ensures the recruitment of candidates of the highest caliber, particularly for a post of significant judicial responsibility since the power to determine the essential qualifications for a given position is an intrinsic attribute of the selecting authority.

Speaking for the bench Justice Goel said that, "Interview may also be the best mode and most efficacious way for assessing the suitability of a candidate for a particular position, as it brings out overall intellectual qualities of the candidates and judicial temperament that they possess."

"While the written test will testify the candidate's academic knowledge, the oral test can bring out or disclose overall intellectual and personal qualities like alertness, resourcefulness, dependability, capacity for discussion, ability to take decisions, qualities of leadership etc. which are also essential for a Judicial officer," said the Court.

The Court was hearing the plea filed by Rajesh Gupta, challenging the selection procedure the the Haryana Superior Judicial Services for the post of Additional District & Sessions Judges advertised in 2015. Gupta fell short of the minimum qualifying marks by 33 marks.

Counsel appearing for Gupta Advocate R.N. Lohan argued that since Article 309 of the Constitution and the rules framed under in 2007 do not envisage or prescribe any threshold of minimum marks being a prerequisite for final selection, the High Court could not have done so for the selections.

It was also submitted that no minimum marks can be prescribed in context of a selection process, as the same is competitive in nature inter se the candidates.

Rejecting the argument, the Court referred to Abhimeet Sinha & others vs. High Court of Judicature of Patna & others to underscore that the prescription of minimum marks in viva voce is in tandem with the tenets of law.

"The dicta would apply mutatis mutandis to a condition prescribing minimum qualifying marks in the written exam as also to aggregate of the written exam and the viva voce," added the Court.

The Court highlighted that, "the requirement of attaining a minimum of 50% marks is not a mere procedural formality; nor a dispensable threshold that may be overlooked at judicial discretion; rather, it constitutes an indispensable prerequisite, a sine qua non, for eligibility."

Moreover, it reasoned that, "A litigant who lacks the foundational eligibility for appointments stands wholly disqualified from challenging the selection and appointment of others, particularly under the pretended invocation of quo warranto."

On plea of granting the grace marks for qualifying the selection process, the Court said, "The petitioner's plea, for relaxation in the prescribed threshold is wholly devoid of legal foundation, for it is a well settled principle that eligibility conditions, once lawfully stipulated, cannot be attenuated, diluted, or tailored to accommodate the exigencies of an individual candidate."

Thus, conferment of additional or grace marks, in the realm of public appointments, without the imprimatur of reasoned justification, would amount to an egregious departure from the sacrosanct principles of fairness and equality, added the Court.

The bench opined that, "Such an arbitrary indulgence, extended to a particular candidate, would be in stark defiance of the constitutional guarantees enshrined under Articles 14 and 16, which mandate that all candidates be accorded equal treatment in matters of public employment."

In the light of the above, the plea was dismissed.

Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Vikas Chatrath, Advocate Ms. Preet Arora, Advocate and Ms. Tanya Sehgal, Advocate for High Court.

Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr. Aakash Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.5.

Title: Rajesh Gupta v. Punjab and Haryana High Court and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 122

Click here to read/download the order