HC upholds 50% qualifying mark criterion for judicial selection

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that minimum qualifying criterion of 50 per cent aggregate marks for general category candidates in written test and viva voice is legally sustainable and essential to maintaining judicial standards.

The assertion came as a Division Bench upheld the selection criteria for Additional District and Sessions Judge (ADJ) appointments in Haryana.

Dismissing a writ petition challenging a clause in the advertisement, the court held that the petitioner, who failed to secure the prescribed minimum marks, was ineligible for appointment. The petitioner, having voluntarily participated in the selection process without objecting to the clause 15 at the outset, was “stopped” from questioning its legality post facto merely because the result was unfavourable to him.

It's prescribing authority's call

The court said the prescribing authority had the prerogative to set eligibility conditions to ensure the selection of candidates of the highest caliber for judicial positions.

"The requirement of attaining a minimum of 50 per cent 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," the Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel asserted.

The petitioner had sought relaxation of the 50 per cent qualifying mark criterion, arguing that a competitive selection process should not have a fixed threshold. The court rejected this contention while asserting that the prescribing authority had the prerogative to set eligibility conditions to ensure the selection of candidates of the highest caliber for judicial positions. "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," the judgment stated.

Addressing the petitioner’s plea for grace marks, the court held that such a demand was legally untenable and contrary to constitutional principles of fairness and equality in public employment. "Eligibility conditions, once lawfully stipulated, cannot be attenuated, diluted, or tailored to accommodate the exigencies of an individual candidate. Conferring additional or grace marks, in the realm of public appointments, would amount to an egregious departure from sacrosanct principles of fairness and equality," the court ruled.

The Bench also cited the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence against rounding off marks unless expressly provided for in the applicable rules. It noted that the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007, did not permit any relaxation or grace marks, making the petitioner’s request legally untenable. "The law countenances no preferential treatment or ad hoc relaxation in favour of an individual, particularly when such relaxation has neither statutory sanction nor any reasonable nexus with the avowed objective of securing meritorious appointments," the court observed.

Holding that the selection criteria were clear, mandatory, and non-negotiable, the court dismissed the petitioner’s claim, stating that the challenge to the clause was merely an afterthought aimed at securing a second opportunity through judicial intervention. "The petitioner, in the factual matrix of the case in hand, having acquiesced to the terms of the advertisement and having subjected himself to the prescribed criteria, is estopped in law from challenging the requirement of minimum qualifying marks merely as an expedient recourse to secure a second opportunity at appointment," the Bench concluded.