NHAI informs Delhi High Court that it will reconsider using CLAT-PG scores for lawyer recruitment, addressing concerns over fairness, eligibility, and merit-based selection in public employment.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on September 8, 2025, took up a plea challenging the validity of a National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) notification that prescribed CLAT-PG scores as a mandatory criterion for the recruitment of its legal officers. The petition raises important questions about fairness, eligibility, and constitutional principles in public employment.
Background of the Case
The impugned notification, issued on August 11, 2025, invited applications for 44 Young Professional (Legal) positions in NHAI. According to the notification, the selection process would be solely based on CLAT-PG 2022 onward scores. The recruitment was to be contractual in nature, with candidates deployed across NHAI offices in India.
However, this criterion has been challenged on the grounds that CLAT-PG is designed exclusively for admission into postgraduate law programs (LL.M.), and not for determining merit in public employment.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The plea has been filed by Advocate Shannu Baghel, who argues that the recruitment condition is arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory, violating Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. The key submissions include:
- Mismatch of Purpose: CLAT-PG assesses eligibility for higher studies in law, not professional suitability for legal roles in public service.
- Exclusion of Eligible Candidates: By restricting recruitment to those with CLAT-PG 2022 onward scores, NHAI has excluded:
- Fresh law graduates
- Practising advocates
- Candidates who appeared for CLAT-PG prior to 2022
- Violation of Constitutional Mandates: Public employment must have a reasonable nexus between selection criteria and the objective of the job. Reliance was placed on the landmark judgment State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976) 2 SCC 310.
- Denial of Natural Justice: The notification unfairly denies equally qualified advocates an opportunity to compete, violating principles of fair consideration.
The petitioner has, therefore, sought a writ of certiorari to quash the notification, along with directions to NHAI to frame a fair and transparent recruitment process open to all law graduates.
NHAI’s Response
During the hearing before a division bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, counsel for NHAI informed the Court that:
- The authority is willing to reconsider its decision.
- The deadline for applications has been extended to September 25, 2025.
The matter will next be taken up on September 18, 2025.
Appearance:
For Petitioners: Mr. Shannu Baghel and Mr. Aakash, Mr. Saksham Kumar, Mr. Vikas, Mr. Ganpat Ram, Mr. Yash Chaudhary, Advs.
For Respondents: Ms. Monika Arora and Ms. Neha Sharma, Ms. Karnika Bahuguna, Advs. for R-1 Mr. Santosh Kumar, SC and Mr. Adithya Raman, Adv. for NHAI
Case Title:
SHANNU BAGHEL Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR
W.P.(C) 13490/2025
