Written Test Alone Can’t Determine Result; Higher Than 15% Marks For Viva-Voce In Recruitment To Judicial Offices Understandable: Punjab & Haryana HC
The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a Petition by a candidate aggrieved by the non-appointment despite doing his ‘best’ in the interview.
Punjab and Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that a candidate’s aptitude, inclination, and character to become a judge cannot be determined solely by a written test, justifying a slightly higher allocation of marks for viva-voce than 15% in judicial recruitment.
The Court dismissed a Writ Petition filed by a candidate for the position of Civil Judge (Entry Level), aggrieved by the non-appointment in the recruitment process conducted by the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC). The Petitioner, despite scoring 513.50 out of 900 in the written examination, failed to meet the required aggregate due to securing only 29.75 marks out of 200 in the viva-voce round.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sudhir Singh held, “Recruitment to judicial service is not akin to recruitment to any civil post under the State or UOI. The unique nature of duties and powers attached to a judicial office compels the recruiting agency to adopt mode of selection which is understandably distinct. Emphasis upon viva-voce to a little more extent than other recruitments, is necessary to ensure, that persons of very high level of integrity, aptitude, character and merit, adorn the judicial offices. Whether a candidate has an aptitude, inclination and character to become a judge, cannot alone be determined by written test. Therefore, a little higher percentage of marks for viva-voce than 15% (as stipulated by Apex Court in Ajay Hasia [supra]) in recruitment to judicial offices is understandable.”
Advocate Nayandeep Rana represented the Petitioner, while Senior Advocate Sanjeev Sharma appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The ground taken in support of non-appointment was that, the Petitioner despite doing his best in the interview could not succeed.
The Petitioner relied on precedents, including the Supreme Court's decisions in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (1981) and Aalma v. Delhi High Court (2023).
Court’s Reasoning
The Court clarified that the former case, which dealt with admissions to an engineering course, was not directly applicable to judicial recruitment. Similarly, the Court noted that the relief granted in Aalma (supra) arose under the Supreme Court's extraordinary jurisdiction and could not be extended to the present case.
The Court highlighted that the recruitment to judicial services was not akin to recruitment to any civil post under the State or UOI. “Emphasis upon viva-voce to a little more extent than other recruitments, is necessary to ensure, that persons of very high level of integrity, aptitude, character and merit, adorn the judicial offices,” it explained.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Lila Dhar v. State of Rajasthan (1981), the Court affirmed that a higher weightage to viva-voce in judicial recruitments is justified.
Consequently, the Court held, “In view of the above, this Court sees no reason to take cognizance of the cause raised herein and, therefore, the petition at the very outset is dismissed sans cost.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Bhuvan Goel v. Punjab and Haryana High Court (Neutral Citation: 2025:PHHC:001738-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Nayandeep Rana
Respondent: Senior Advocate Sanjeev Sharma; Advocates Shubreet Kaur Saron and Balvinder Sangwan