The High Court referred to a previous Supreme Court decision, which upheld the validity of minimum marks for viva-voce in judiciary exams.
Punjab: The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday (18th March) rejected a petition that challenged the requirement of minimum marks for selecting judges for the district judiciary. The petitioner had argued that there should be no mandatory minimum marks for judicial selections.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel ruled that setting a minimum marks requirement is necessary to maintain the quality of the judiciary.
The Court stated:
“It is imperative that only persons with a prescribed minimum of qualities or capacity be selected lest the standard of judiciary gets diluted by appointment of sub-standard candidates.”
The Court further held that it is within the authority of the selection body to set the criteria for recruitment, especially for important judicial positions.
The Bench noted:
“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 since the power to determine the essential qualifications for a given position in an intrinsic attribute of the selecting authority.”
The High Court referred to a previous Supreme Court decision, which upheld the validity of minimum marks for viva-voce in judiciary exams.
Applying the same logic, the Court held:
“The dicta would apply mutatis mutandis to a condition prescribing minimum qualifying marks in the written exam as also the aggregate of the written exam and the viva voce.”
The petition was filed by a judicial aspirant, Rajesh Gupta, who contested the selection process for the Haryana Superior Judicial Services. The dispute was related to the results declared in 2018.
As per the selection criteria, candidates needed to secure at least 500 marks out of a total of 1,000 (combined written and viva voce marks). Gupta, who missed the cut-off by 33 marks, argued that the selection rules framed under Article 309 of the Indian Constitution and the 2007 selection rules did not specify any minimum marks requirement. He claimed that the High Court had no authority to impose such a condition.
He also requested the Court to grant relaxation in the form of grace marks.
The High Court, however, ruled that the 2007 Rules gave it the power to regulate the selection process. The Bench asserted:
“This plenary discretion encompasses the power to determine the mode and manner of conducting examinations, including the prerogative necessary to uphold the standards of merit and suitability.”
The Court further noted that candidates who willingly participate in an examination cannot later challenge the rules of selection. It also rejected the demand for grace marks, emphasizing that eligibility criteria must be strictly followed.
“Once a candidate has voluntarily applied for and participated in a selection process, he is interdicted from subsequently challenging its legality or fairness of the process.”
Additionally, regarding grace marks, the Bench held:
“The eligibility criteria ought to be strictly adhered to.”
After reviewing all arguments, the Court dismissed the petition.
Legal Representation
- Advocate RN Lohan represented the petitioner.
- Advocates Vikas Chatrath, Preet Arora, and Tanya Sehgal represented the High Court.
- Senior Advocate Puneet Bali, along with Advocate Aakash Sharma, represented a selected candidate.
Case Title: Rajesh Gupta v Punjab and Haryana High Court and others.
