Many Govt Job Aspirants Pursue LLB, Law Is Essential Subject For Some Posts: P&H High Court Quashes GK-Based Syllabus For Haryana ADA Exam
In a significant ruling, the High Court has quashed the Haryana Public Service Commission's advertisement for Assistant District Attorney (ADA) posts, which featured a general knowledge-based syllabus while excluding law as a core subject in screening test. The court observed that thousands of students pursue LLB degrees with the hope of securing public employment, and that legal knowledge is essential for posts like ADA.
The new syllabus for Haryana ADA Screening Test included Current Events of National and International Importance, History of India, Indian and World Geography, Indian Culture, Indian Polity and Indian Economy, General Mental Ability, Reasoning and Analytical Abilities, Basic numeracy, numbers and their relations, Data interpretation, Haryana GK History etc. and excludes law subject.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil said, "In a country where thousands of students enroll each year in 3-year and 5-year LL.B. programmes with the hope that their legal education will open doors to public employment in certain posts where law is not merely relevant but essential, ADA being one of them. Conducting a shortlisting process that excludes legal subjects altogether defeats the very premise of their qualification. When candidates possessing the prescribed essential qualification are filtered out at the threshold by tests assessing areas unrelated to their academic training, this nullifies the purpose of professional legal education."
The Court added that, "unreasonable procedure adopted by the commission renders the legal degree possessed by the candidates inconsequential and takes away a fair and equal opportunity of public employment from a large number of candidates."
One must remember that the purpose of the screening test was to aid opportunity to all. In a country as vast and varied as ours, marked by economic disparity and unequal access to resources, public employment is not just a job, it is a gateway to empowerment. Therefore, screening is not merely a sieve to identify the best but also a bridge that connects potential with possibility, it said.
Justice Moudgil highlighted that the screening stage is the first invitation in the journey towards public employment. It must be fair and reasonable to embrace the full spectrum of country's human potential.
Screening Test Lacked Rational Nexus
The bench opined that the screening process adopted by entirely excluding legal subjects for a legally specialized post like ADA fails to meet the standard of legality in recruitment and it lacks rational nexus with the nature of the post, operates arbitrarily, and undermines the very qualifications it seeks to assess, thereby rendering the process legally unsustainable.
"However, the approach adopted by the commission has serious and far-reaching implications causing prejudice to many brilliant legal minds. When the marks obtained in a screening test are not carried forward or counted towards the final merit, then what compelled the commission to change the syllabus and make the test the sole determinant of who proceeds to the next stage," it added.
The bench said that, candidates invest significant time, energy, and resources to prepare for recruitment processes that hold the promise of public employment and to subject them to an elimination round that is wholly detached from the final selection not only dilutes the legitimacy of the process but also renders their efforts futile.
Court Bound To Reach Injustice
It further clarified that it is true that the court does not normally interfere with the selections made by duly constituted Body. However, it is equally settled that the court in the exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction, is bound to "reach injustice wherever it occurs". While courts must exercise restraint in interfering with the discretion granted to expert bodies in matters concerning selection procedures, such discretion must nevertheless maintain a clear and rational connection to the objective intended to be achieved.
Unjust To Eliminate Candidates On Basis Of GK For Post With LLB As Essential Qualification
The Court noted that it is constitutional injury as these candidates are not being rejected after a full and fair evaluation of their suitability, they are being denied even the fair chance to be considered. The selection is not at stake here, but the opportunity to be considered for selection and by denying such a vast majority of eligible candidates access to the next stage, the process effectively locks them out of the zone of consideration altogether without even testing their ability on legal acumen of the essential qualification i.e., LLB, BA, LLB degree course.
"And in doing so, it extinguishes their fundamental right of equal opportunity of public employment. This right is not abstract but it is the bedrock of our democratic promise that every individual has an equal stake in public service," it added.
Violation Right To Equal Opportunity
The Court said that the rule of law, being the core of the Constitution, prohibits arbitrary or whimsical exercise of power. A Court of law, therefore, cannot and must not sustain or uphold an appointment that is made in contravention of the rules or without due process, including proper competition amongst all eligible candidates. Any such act would amount to an impermissible bypassing of Articles 14 and 16, and would offend the constitutional vision of a fair and merit-based public service.
"Ousting such a large number may include capable and bright candidates with legal knowledge solely on the basis of Screening Test that bears no nexus with the essential qualifications for the post of ADA as expressly provided in the statutory rules concerned would be totally capricious and against the spirit of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India," it added.
Moreover, the judge noted that the Commission has failed to provide any cogent justification for this sudden and radical departure from the earlier syllabus, wherein law formed a substantial component of the Screening Test. In the previous recruitment process, 80% of the weightage in the Screening Test was accorded to law subjects and only 20% to general awareness, reflecting a more balanced and rational approach.
Accordingly, the Court held that the Screening Test syllabus notified vide the advertisement, "fails the test of reasonableness and relevance to the post of Assistant District Attorney as well as of giving equal opportunity to all in public employment by excluding a significant and deserving segment of candidates prematurely and unfairly, the process defeats the very purpose of recruiting the best legal talent for public service."
Title: LAKHAN SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS [along with other petitions]
Mr. Ajit Singh Lamba, Advocate, Mr. Vivek Sheoran, Advocate and
Ms. Annie, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-25672-2025
Mr. Omkar Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-23638-2025
Mr. Prashant Manchanda, Advocate, Ms. Nancy Shah, Advocate and Mr. Angad Singh, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP-25241-2025
Mr. Gurinder Pal Singh, Advocate and Ms. Sushma Singh, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-24103-2025
Mr. Abhinay Sharma, Advocate and Ms. Nevadita Malik Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-24106-2025.
Mr. Rohit Kumar, Advocate and Ms. Yashika Walia, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-28061-2025
Mr. MS Kundu, Advocatefor the petitioner in CWP-29741-2025
Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. AG Haryana
Mr. Kanwal Goyal, Advocate, Ms. Sheena Dahiya, Advocate and Ms. Komal Klana, Advocate for the respondent-HPSC
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 410