Case Summary: Rajesh Gupta v. Punjab and Haryana High Court and Others (2025) | 50% Minimum Marks Rule for District Judiciary

On 18 March 2025, the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, comprising Hon’ble Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Hon’ble Justice Sumeet Goel, dismissed the writ petition filed by Rajesh Gupta. The court upheld the validity of the 50% minimum qualifying mark requirement, stating that it was a reasonable and lawful measure aimed at ensuring the recruitment of highly competent judicial officers.

Case Title: Rajesh Gupta v. Punjab and Haryana High Court and Others

Citation: 2025 PHHC 036129 (DB) 

Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Bench: Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel

Date of Judgment: March 18, 2025

Facts of the Case

• The petitioner, Rajesh Gupta, applied for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge under the Haryana Superior Judicial Services (HSJS) based on an advertisement dated 16.07.2015 issued by the Registrar (Recruitment) of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
• The recruitment was conducted under Rule 6(1)(c) of the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 ("2007 Rules"), which stipulates that 25% of the posts are to be filled by direct recruitment through a competitive examination consisting of a written test and viva voce.
• Clause 15 of the advertisement prescribed that candidates must secure:

i) 40% or more marks in each paper to qualify for the viva voce.

ii) 50% marks (45% for SC/ST/BC) in aggregate in the written test and viva voce to be considered for appointment.

• The examination was conducted in 2017, and the provisional result was declared on 31.07.2017.
• The petitioner was provisionally allowed to appear for the viva voce on 27.09.2017 despite objections raised against discrepancies in his application.
• The final result was declared on 16.11.2018, where the petitioner scored 467 marks out of 1000—falling short of the qualifying threshold of 500 marks.
• Consequently, respondent nos. 5 and 6 were declared successful, and the petitioner was excluded from the final list of appointees.
• The appointment order dated 21.12.2018 confirmed the appointments of respondents nos. 5 and 6.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner challenged the selection process and his exclusion on the following grounds:

(a) Illegality of Clause 15

The petitioner argued that Clause 15, which introduced the minimum qualifying marks requirement, was ultra vires as it was not provided under the 2007 Rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution.

He contended that the High Court had no authority to impose additional conditions that were not part of the statutory framework.

The petitioner relied on the constitutional principle that selection criteria cannot be changed or imposed arbitrarily at the final stage of recruitment.

(b) Unlawful Appointment of Respondents No. 5 and 6

The petitioner contended that the relaxation of criteria for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 amounted to preferential treatment and a violation of the principles of fairness and equality under Article 14 of the Constitution.

If the respondents were granted relaxation, the petitioner should have been extended similar consideration.

The petitioner argued that had the recruitment process been conducted fairly, he would have faced competition from only two eligible candidates, making his selection a certainty.

(c) Relaxation of Marks on Grounds of Equity

The petitioner sought a relaxation of 33 marks (to make up for the shortfall) on grounds of equity and fair play.

He argued that his marks were close to the qualifying threshold and that principles of natural justice required the High Court to exercise discretion and relax the criteria in his favour.

(d) Arbitrary Nature of the Minimum Marks Requirement

• The petitioner argued that the minimum qualifying marks requirement was arbitrary and unreasonable.
• He claimed that a selection process for judicial officers should focus on merit rather than rigid numerical thresholds.

Respondents' Arguments

The respondents defended the selection process and appointments on the following grounds:

(a) Justification of Clause 15

• The respondents argued that Clause 15 was introduced to ensure that candidates selected for judicial appointments exhibited a minimum level of competence and merit.
• The 2007 Rules allowed the High Court to prescribe conditions necessary for a fair and transparent recruitment process.
• The High Court had the discretion to impose additional qualifying criteria through administrative instructions where the statutory rules were silent.

(b) Petitioner’s Failure to Meet the Cut-Off

The petitioner scored 467 marks, which was below the qualifying threshold of 500 marks (50% of the total).

The petitioner was not entitled to claim selection when he failed to meet the minimum prescribed criteria.

(c) No Right to Challenge After Participating in the Process

The respondents argued that the petitioner voluntarily participated in the selection process and only challenged the criteria after he was unsuccessful.

The principle of estoppel prevented the petitioner from questioning the legality of the process after participation.

(d) Appointment of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 Was Legal

The appointment of respondents no. 5 and 6 was consistent with the selection criteria and governing rules.

There was no illegality or favouritism in their selection.

Issues Raised

• Whether Clause 15 of the advertisement prescribing minimum qualifying marks was legally valid?
• Whether the High Court had the authority to impose additional selection criteria not specified in the 2007 Rules?
• Whether the petitioner had a right to challenge the selection process after participating in it?
• Whether the appointment of respondents no. 5 and 6 was arbitrary and violated the principle of equal treatment under Article 14?
• Whether the petitioner was entitled to relaxation of the minimum marks requirement on grounds of equity and natural justice?

Court’s Analysis and Findings

(a) Validity of Clause 15

The Court held that Clause 15 was valid since the 2007 Rules were silent on minimum qualifying marks. The High Court was empowered to fill gaps in the statutory framework through administrative instructions. The Court relied on Dr. Kavita Kamboj v. Punjab and Haryana High Court (2024) and Ramesh Kumar v. Delhi High Court (2010) to support the High Court’s authority to introduce additional selection criteria.

(b) Relaxation of Criteria

The Court rejected the petitioner’s request for relaxation of 33 marks, holding that granting such relaxation would undermine the integrity of the selection process.

(c) Right to Challenge After Participation

The Court held that the petitioner, having participated voluntarily in the selection process, was estopped from challenging the criteria after failing to qualify. The principle of estoppel applied since the petitioner was aware of Clause 15 before participating.

(d) Appointment of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6

The Court held that the appointment of respondents no. 5 and 6 was valid and consistent with the selection rules. There was no evidence of favouritism or unfair advantage.

Judgment

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that:

• Clause 15 was legally valid and consistent with the constitutional framework.
• The petitioner was not entitled to the relaxation of the minimum qualifying marks.
• The appointment of respondents no. 5 and 6 was lawful and under the selection rules.
• The petitioner’s challenge was barred by the principle of estoppel.

Conclusion

By upholding the 50% minimum marks requirement, the court has reinforced the principle of merit-based selection and ensured that only the most competent and deserving candidates are appointed to the judiciary. This ruling will have far-reaching implications for future judicial appointments and the integrity of the judicial system.​​

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment

Important Link