Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Minimum Marks Criteria for Judicial Service Recruitment
The High Court dismisses Rushil Jindal's challenge against the prescribed minimum marks, affirming its discretion to select the best candidates for judicial duties.
In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has reaffirmed the validity of prescribing minimum marks qualification in the recruitment process for the Superior Judicial Services of Punjab and Haryana. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Mr. Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, delivered the judgment on September 22, 2025, dismissing the writ petition filed by Rushil Jindal.
The petitioner, Rushil Jindal, had challenged Clause 8.4 of the notifications issued for the recruitment process, arguing that the imposition of minimum marks qualification was arbitrary and in contravention of the Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007, and Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007. The notification required candidates to score a minimum of 40% in each paper and 50% in aggregate from both written and viva-voce examinations to qualify for appointment.
The High Court, however, held that the prescription of minimum marks qualification was valid and well within the discretion of the High Court to ensure the selection of the best available talent. The judgment emphasized that the rules governing the recruitment process were silent on the specific criteria for assessing merit and suitability, thus allowing the High Court to supplement these rules through executive instructions.
In its detailed analysis, the court referenced several precedents, including the Supreme Court's judgments in K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and Dr. Kavita Kamboj v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, underscoring the principle that administrative instructions can complement statutory rules to fill gaps. The court noted that the minimum marks criterion was essential to maintain high standards in the judiciary, ensuring that candidates possessed the requisite qualities for judicial duties.
Furthermore, the court dismissed the petitioner's contention that he was eligible based on his performance in the written examination, as his previous challenge on similar grounds was dismissed by the Supreme Court. The judgment reiterated the doctrine of estoppel, preventing the petitioner from re-litigating the same issue.
The ruling is seen as a crucial step in safeguarding the integrity and competence of the judicial system by upholding rigorous standards in the selection process.
Bottom Line:
Judicial Service Recruitment - Prescription of minimum marks qualification for written examination and viva-voce is valid and not arbitrary, as it supplements the Superior Judicial Service Rules of Punjab and Haryana.
Statutory provision(s): Judicial Service Rules, Punjab and Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 - Rule 7 and Rule 11, Clause 8.4 of the Notifications
