Mandate On Securing 50% Marks To Qualify Superior Judicial Services Exam Not Arbitrary: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the validity of the rule mandating a minimum of 50% aggregate marks for qualification in the Superior Judiciary Examination of both the states.

A candidate who appeared for Additional District and Sessions Judge in Punjab and Haryana challenged the Rules which required for minimum 40% marks out of total 750 marks of the written examination and 50% marks out of total aggregate of 1000 marks for qualification.

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry said, "the High Court by laying down the syllabus and format of examination, specified the scheme thereof by inserting the impugned Clauses in the notifications, has not done anything violative of the basic Rules but the same has been done in exercise of its powers in the light of the Constitutional Scheme so that the best available talent can be selected for performance of the duties as a Member of Superior Judicial Services and for that purpose imposition of “minimum marks qualification” in said written examination and viva-voce does not in any manner became irrelevant to adjudged the merit and suitability of any candidate for such post nor the same is in contravention of the basic Rules in any manner as has been envisaged under the Superior Judicial Services Rules of the respective States."

The petitioner Rushil Jindal had appeared in the competitive examination conducted for appointment to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge in the State of Haryana as well as Punjab by way of direct recruitment.

In the written examination Jindal secured 344.5 marks in the State of Haryana and 340.5 marks in the State of Punjab out of total 750 marks. He had scored requisite 40% marks in each paper. However Jindal was declared unsuccessful after result of written examination and viva-voce inter alia on the ground that he obtained less then 50% marks in aggregate out of total marks fixed for written test and viva-voce as per Clause 8.4 of the impugned notifications.

Senior counsel representing the petitioner assailed these notifications imposing “minimum marks qualification” under clause 8.4 thereof being arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law, on the ground that the same is not in consonance with the basic Rules contained in Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 and Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules 2007.

After hearing the submissions, the Court noted that Rules prescribed for the Direct Recruitment it is stipulated that the maximum marks for the written Test shall be 750 and for viva-voce will be 250.

"The High Court while issuing notifications  for the direct recruitment to the Superior Judicial Services in the States of Punjab and Haryana respectively had specified the syllabus and format of examination wherein the impugned Clause 8.4 provides for the candidate securing 40% or more marks in each paper will be called for viva- voce. It is specified there that merely securing 40% or more marks would not confer any right to be called for viva-voce," it added.

It further pointed that the High Court has discretion to shortlist the candidates equal to three times the number of vacancies for viva- voce. It is further provided that no candidate will be considered to have successfully qualified the Superior Judicial Service Examination unless he/she obtains 50% marks in the aggregate out of the total marks fixed for the written test and viva-voce and further that the candidates will be appointed in the order of merit (category wise) in which they are placed after the conduct of written test and viva-voce.

The division bench highlighted that there is consistent view taken by the Apex Court to the fact that when the Rules are silent with regard to the manner in which the merit and suitability would be determined, "then the administrative instructions can supplement the Rules in this regard, in order to fill up the gaps. Such instructions have a binding force providing their subservient to the statutory provisions."

Reliance was also placed upon K.H. Siraj vs. High Court of Kerala and others, (2006) 6 SCC 395,  to underscore that it is clearly open for the High Court to prescribe bench marks for the written test and oral test in order to achieve the purpose of getting the best available talent and there is nothing in the Rules barring such a procedure from being adopted.

In the light of the above, the Court held, "it is open to the High Court to prescribe the criteria including cut of marks and 'minimum marks qualification' as has been envisaged in clause 8.4 of the impugned notifications...to asses the merit and suitability of the candidates to be appointed in the Superior Judicial Services to perform the sacrocent duties of Judicial Officer."

Mr. Aashish Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Arav Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Yash Pal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Munisha Gandhi, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Shubreet Kaur Saron, Advocate and Ms. Manveen Narang, Advocate for respondent-High Court.

Title: RUSHIL JINDAL v. PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AND OTHERS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 388

Click here for order