HC quashes Haryana’s asst dist attorney recruitment, calls screening test arbitrary

The court was hearing a batch of petitions filed by aspiring lawyers, including Lakhan Singh, Navender, and Aman Dalal, who challenged the Haryana Public Service Commission’s (HPSC) advertisement of August 8, 2025, and a related announcement the same day outlining the exam pattern. The petitioners argued that, unlike earlier recruitments where the screening test primarily included questions on law, the new format confined it to general topics, which they said was unfair and unrelated to the specialised legal post.

The judge agreed, noting that the ADA’s role demands expertise in criminal law, evidence, and procedure. “By completely excluding law from the screening test, the Commission has destroyed the rational nexus between the mode of selection and the object sought to be achieved,” the order stated. The court said the test would eliminate a large number of candidates at the first stage without assessing their legal knowledge, calling it an “exclusionary practice” that “denies candidates a meaningful chance to compete and is constitutionally unsustainable.”

The recruitment sought to fill vacancies across categories — 134 general, 26 scheduled castes, and 54 backward classes (BCA and BCB) — and required candidates to hold a law degree, have studied Hindi or Sanskrit up to Class 10, and be enrolled as advocates. The process involved three stages: a screening test of 100 multiple-choice questions (requiring at least 25 percent to qualify), a subject knowledge test with 87.5 percent weightage focused on civil and criminal law, and an interview carrying 12.5 percent weightage. Only candidates up to four times the number of posts would advance to the second stage.

Petitioners, represented by advocates Ajit Singh Lamba and Gurinder Pal Singh, contended that the change in exam pattern disadvantaged those who had prepared according to earlier formats where law made up 80 percent of the test. “The very essence of recruitment lies in testing the legal acumen possessed by the candidates in subjects such as criminal law, evidence, and procedure,” one argument noted in the order.

The HPSC defended its decision, saying it had the discretion to determine shortlisting methods and that the screening test was merely a qualifying step, with legal knowledge assessed later. It argued that ADAs, as Group B officers, need broader awareness since they are often deputed to government departments beyond court work.

The court rejected the argument, holding that administrative convenience such as reducing the burden of evaluating answer sheets  cannot override candidates’ right to a fair chance in public employment.

The court also faulted the HPSC for changing the syllabus without consulting the state government, as required under constitutional provisions and its own 1973 regulations. “The unilateral change in syllabus and selection methodology without prior consultation renders the process procedurally flawed and legally unsustainable,” the order said.

Describing public employment as a “new form of property” to which all citizens must have equal access, the court said the recruitment had turned into a “mechanical sieve that shuts out merit for the sake of convenience,” violating the spirit of equality.

While quashing the advertisement and related announcement, the court allowed the state and the HPSC to restart the process in accordance with its ruling. “The State, as a model employer, must be anchored in equity and guided by reason in all its actions. It cannot hide arbitrariness behind the cloak of discretion,” Justice Moudgil said.

The screening test had been scheduled for November 2, with applications closing on September 2.

“Law without legality, process without fairness, and discretion without accountability are anathema to our constitutional order,” the judge concluded, calling each job notification a “beacon of hope” for aspirants in a country facing high unemployment.