Today, On 24th September, The Delhi High Court struck down the NHAI notification for recruiting lawyers based on CLAT PG scores. The court observed, “A public employment, such a provision hits Article 16,” emphasizing equality in government recruitment processes.
The Delhi High Court quashes a notification from the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) that aimed to recruit lawyers based on scores from the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) Post Graduate (PG) exam starting from 2022.
The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, delivered the judgment today after previously staying the NHAI’s notification and reserving its decision on the matter.
The Court declared the recruitment criteria invalid, stating,
“The writ petition is allowed and the recruitment criteria of August 11 is hereby quashed.”
It raised concerns during the hearings about the appropriateness of using CLAT PG exam scores for employment, noting that the exam was originally intended to assess candidates for further studies.
The Court accepted a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by practicing advocate Shannu Baghel, who challenged the NHAI’s notification from August 11, 2025. This notification sought to hire 44 Young Professional (Legal) candidates based solely on their CLAT scores from 2022 and beyond.
Baghel argued that using CLAT PG scores as a selection criterion for public employment was inappropriate.
He emphasized that the recruitment process was limited to candidates who participated in CLAT 2022 and later, thereby excluding many law graduates and practicing advocates who are otherwise qualified. He described this restriction based on CLAT scores as arbitrary and irrational.
The petition also pointed out that the notification unfairly marginalized various groups, including fresh graduates, practicing advocates, and those who took the CLAT PG exam before 2022.
In defense of the recruitment notification, NHAI counsel Ankur Mittal contended that CLAT scores were not the only criterion for selection, asserting that experience in arbitration and personal interviews would also factor into the decision-making process. However, the Court found this argument unconvincing.
The Chief Justice remarked during the hearings,
“How can this exam be a qualification? LLB is eligibility. It is a public employment; such a provision hits Article 16,”
Advocates Aakash, Saksham Kumar, Vikas, Ganpat Ram, and Yash Chaudhary represented petitioner Advocate Shannu Baghel, who also appeared in person.
Advocates Monika Arora, Neha Sharma, and Karnika Bahuguna represented the Union of India, while Standing Counsel Ankur Mittal, alongside advocate Rabaica Jaiswal, appeared for NHAI.
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.
Case Title: Shannu Baghel vs Union of India & Anr.
Click Here To Read More Reports on NHAI
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
