TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | ChinaUnited StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
News Columns | Straight DriveCanada CallingLondon LetterKashmir AngleJammu JournalInside the CapitalHimachal CallingHill View
Don't Miss
Advertisement

NHAI may revisit decision on using CLAT-PG scores for recruitment of lawyers

Petitioner argues test not designed as criterion for public employment

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) informed the Delhi High Court on Monday that it was likely to review its decision to use CLAT-PG scores as the basis for hiring lawyers.

Advertisement

A division Bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was hearing a public interest litigation filed by advocate Shannu Baghel. The petition challenges NHAI’s notification of August 11, which required candidates to rely on their Common Law Admission Test (Post Graduate) scores for selection.

Advertisement

During the hearing, the counsel for NHAI said that the last date for applications had been extended to September 25 and that the authority was considering revisiting the impugned decision. The Bench fixed the matter for September 18 and directed it be placed high on board.

The petitioner argued that the CLAT-PG was meant only to test the eligibility of LLB graduates for pursuing a master’s degree in law, and could not be made a criterion for public employment. The plea states that the notification is not connected with academic advancement but with providing legal professional services, and therefore using CLAT-PG scores as the sole benchmark is ‘arbitrary and irrational’.

It further contends that there is no reasonable pertinence between the object of recruitment and the chosen criteria, making the process legally unsustainable.

Advertisement

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement