The Delhi High Court has halted NHAI’s legal recruitment for relying solely on CLAT PG scores. The Court questioned its fairness and reserved judgment on the plea.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has stayed the National Highways Authority of India’s (NHAI) recruitment process for lawyers, which is based on CLAT PG scores. The Court has also reserved its judgment on the petition that questions why NHAI is using the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) for postgraduate courses as a selection criterion for hiring legal professionals.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela heard the case. The judges expressed serious doubts about the fairness and suitability of using CLAT PG scores for jobs.
Justice Gedela asked,
“What’s the rationale? CLAT PG is meant for admission into LLM courses. How does it test employability for a legal position? This isn’t an evaluation of whether one will make a good recruit.”
Responding to this, NHAI’s counsel Ankur Mittal defended the process and said,
“CLAT scores are a reasonable benchmark to assess legal acumen of candidates.”
However, the Bench was not satisfied. The Chief Justice remarked,
“But the skills needed for higher studies and for employment are different. Why should CLAT PG scores be given such weightage in recruitment?”
Justice Gedela added another concern and asked,
“How can CLAT PG scores be made a mandatory eligibility criterion, without which a candidate cannot even apply?”
The Chief Justice further observed,
“You are selecting candidates based on marks, not just using it as a benchmark. Recruitment requires different evaluation parameters.”
In reply, NHAI’s counsel pointed out that public sector undertakings (PSUs) across India follow a similar practice. He explained that work experience is also taken into account and said the application form itself has a separate column for it.
But the Court was not convinced. The Chief Justice made it clear,
“That’s no justification. We’re not convinced. Till pronouncement of judgment, NHAI cannot proceed with the selection process.”
The Bench also raised the issue of fairness since some top institutions do not participate in CLAT PG. Referring to this, the Court asked,
“NLU Delhi ranked 2nd in NIRF is not part of CLAT PG. Why is that excluded? Some candidates may not even be interested in NLUs. Earlier we suggested involving the Bar Association in recruitment.”
Appearing for the State, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma stated,
“Bar Association has to answer that. It can’t be an employment benchmark.”
Finally, the Court reserved its verdict but ordered that,
“Judgment reserved. Recruitment process of NHAI stayed until verdict is delivered.”
With this order, NHAI cannot move forward with its lawyer recruitment until the High Court pronounces its final decision.
The case raises an important question: Should an exam designed for higher legal education be the sole deciding factor in recruitment for government legal positions?
Background of the Case
The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) had recently announced a recruitment drive for hiring lawyers. In its notification, the authority made it compulsory for applicants to have valid scores from the Common Law Admission Test for Postgraduate courses (CLAT PG).
This meant that only candidates who had appeared in CLAT PG and secured a rank were eligible to apply, while those without such scores were automatically excluded.
A group of candidates challenged this requirement before the Delhi High Court. They argued that CLAT PG is an entrance test meant solely for admission into postgraduate law programmes such as LLM, and it has no direct connection with skills required for professional legal practice or government recruitment.
According to them, this restriction unfairly blocks capable lawyers who may not have taken the exam or who might not be interested in pursuing higher studies in law.
The petitioners also pointed out that several reputed institutions, including National Law University (NLU) Delhi, which ranks among the top law universities in India, do not participate in the CLAT PG system. Excluding such candidates, they argued, makes the process arbitrary and discriminatory.
On the other hand, NHAI defended its decision, saying that CLAT PG scores provide an objective benchmark to assess the academic competence of applicants.
The authority also said that other government bodies and public sector undertakings (PSUs) widely rely on CLAT PG for their own legal recruitments, and experience is additionally considered in the application process.
The Delhi High Court, after hearing both sides, raised serious concerns about the fairness of the system. The judges questioned whether CLAT PG could truly measure employability or professional aptitude for legal jobs.
After these observations, the Court stayed NHAI’s recruitment process and reserved its judgment.
Case Title:
Shannu Baghel vs Union of India & Anr.
Read Live Coverage:
Click Here To Read More Reports on NHAI
