No easy entry into judiciary: High Court says 50% cut-off here to stay

The controversy centred on Clause 8.4 of the recruitment notifications for Additional District and Sessions Judges in Punjab and Haryana. The clause mandates that candidates must score at least 40% in the written examination and 50% overall, including the viva voce, to qualify.

The petitioner, an advocate who had cleared the written tests in both states, argued that since the rules did not explicitly prescribe minimum qualifying marks, the additional condition was unfair. He pointed out that he had even topped a judicial exam in Delhi, and claimed the cut-off had kept him from securing a post in Punjab or Haryana.

The High Court disagreed. It noted that similar rules have already been upheld by the Supreme Court, which has clarified that when service rules are silent on certain aspects, the High Court can issue instructions to fill the gap. “Executive instructions can always supplement the Rules which may not deal with every aspect of a matter,” the bench held.

The court also cited a Supreme Court judgment which underlined that judicial service is not just another government job but a role that demands higher standards of merit and suitability. “The best available talent, suitable for manning the judiciary, may get selected,” the bench added, echoing the apex court’s stance.

Quoting Clause 8.4 itself, the bench noted: “Candidates securing 40% or more marks in each paper will be called for viva voce. But merely securing 40% or more marks would not confer any right to be called for viva voce. This Court shall have the discretion to shortlist the candidates equal to three times the number of vacancies… Further, no candidate will be considered to have successfully qualified… unless he/she obtains 50% marks (read 45% marks for SC/BC-A/BC-B/PwD/ESM) in the aggregate out of the total marks fixed for the written test and viva voce.”

The bench referred to both the Punjab and Haryana service rules, which empower the High Court to hold written tests and viva voce examinations. Citing K.H. Siraj vs. High Court of Kerala (2006), it stressed that the High Court’s administrative authority includes determining merit and suitability. “Where the Rules were silent as regards the manner in which merit and suitability would be determined, administrative instructions can supplement the Rules,” it added

From the homepage

‘I’ve had conversations with lawyers…’: Omar says he is considering becoming a party to JK statehood case in SC

Every inch of Pakistan’s territory now within BrahMos reach: Rajnath Singh

Himanta’s BJP gets a new ally, churning Assam’s political landscape months ahead of Assembly polls