High court quashes ADA recruitment test for excluding legal questions, terms process arbitrary and unconstitutional

In a significant ruling reinforcing constitutional guarantees of fairness in public employment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the Haryana Public Service Commission’s (HPSC) screening test for recruitment to the post of Assistant District Attorney (ADA), holding it to be “irrational, arbitrary and constitutionally untenable”.

Justice Sandeep Moudgil held that “to conduct a screening test that excludes legal knowledge for a post fundamentally rooted in legal expertise is not only irrational but constitutionally untenable”.

The court was hearing a bunch of writ petitions seeking quashing of the announcement dated August 8, and an advertisement inviting applications for ADA posts in the Haryana Prosecution Department.

The petitioners had assailed the Commission’s decision to conduct a general screening test at the first stage without including any law-related subjects, contending that such an exercise would “oust a large number of candidates” without testing their legal aptitude. It was argued that the deviation from the earlier syllabus—followed for several years—had been carried out “without recording reasons or holding consultations” as mandated under Clauses 41 and 42 of the Haryana Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1973.

The court recorded that the HPSC “did not dispute” the absence of legal questions in the syllabus but justified the screening test as a short-listing mechanism, stating that over 27,500 candidates had applied for the post. The Commission’s counsel had argued that the 25 per cent cut-off was meant only to reduce the candidate pool to a manageable number.

Rejecting the justification, Justice Moudgil observed that “recruitment to public service is neither a mere exercise in administrative arithmetic nor a mechanical sieve that shuts out merit for the sake of convenience”.

“When legality is compromised, fairness is forsaken, and statutory mandates are disregarded, the essence of Article 16 stands deeply violated. The judiciary cannot remain a passive observer when administrative decisions result in manifest injustice,” the Judge asserted.

Holding that the process suffered from arbitrariness and lacked a rational nexus with the object of selecting the most suitable candidates, the court stated: “Law without legality, process without fairness, and discretion without accountability are anathema to our constitutional order. Each recruitment notification is a beacon of hope for countless aspirants in a country rich in talent yet burdened by unemployment. The State cannot, through administrative haste or callous design, snuff out that hope.”

Emphasising that discretion in public employment must be “tethered to reason” and “procedure must reflect purpose”, the court said that screening out candidates without evaluating their legal competence “fundamentally violates the constitutional guarantees of fairness and equal opportunity”.

Quashing both the announcement dated August 8 and the advertisement, the court declared them “arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 16(1) of the Constitution”.

The judgment concluded: “The present advertisement, aimed at filling a post as specialised as that of Assistant District Attorney, is bereft of any rational nexus with its intended objective... Screening out a vast pool of meritorious candidates without testing their core legal competence defeats the very purpose of recruiting the best legal talent for public service.”

However, the court granted liberty to the state government and the HPSC to “reconsider the selection process afresh” in light of the judgment to fill the posts in accordance with law.