The Delhi High Court observed that the Consortium of National Law Universities while conducting the CLAT (PG) Examination adjudges the suitability of the candidates for pursuing higher studies and not for employing them, in a law related field.

The High Court opined that suitability for public employment may demand certain qualities which may or may not be necessarily required to be fulfilled by a candidate who is desirous of pursuing higher studies.

The Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed, “As observed above, the purpose of holding CLAT (PG) examination is to adjudge the suitability of a candidate for the purposes of determining his skills which enable him to pursue higher study courses. Thus, in our opinion, the Consortium of National Law Universities while conducting the CLAT (PG) Examination adjudges the suitability of the candidates for pursuing higher studies and not for employing them, in a law related field.”

Advocate Shannu Baghel represented the Petitioner, while Advocate Manika Arora represented the Respondents.

Case Brief

A Writ Petition was filed by an advocate practicing before this Court taking exception to the notification issued by the National Highways Authorities of India (NHAI) for engagement of Young Professional (Legal) on contract basis insofar as the said notification prescribes the recruitment criteria on the basis of merit in CLAT (PG) score – 2022 onward.

It was submitted by the Petitioners that the said notification violates Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as the selection based only on CLAT (P G) –2022 score was arbitrary and excludes equal or more meritorious law graduates who appear for law entrance examinations for pursuing their post-graduate law courses. It was also argued that there does not exist any rationale linking CLAT (PG) score to the suitability for employment in NHAI.

Court’s Observation

At the outset, the Delhi High Court underscored that the matters relating to creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source/mode of recruitment and qualifications, criteria of selection, evaluation of service records of the employees fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. However, the prerogative of the employer in relation to prescribing qualification is not absolute. Such prescription of qualification is subject to the same being non-arbitrary.

The Court observed, “Thus, from the discussion of the aforesaid legal principles as enunciated by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the cited judgments, the legal position regarding the scope of judicial review in respect of prescription of qualification for selection/ eligibility which emerges is that any policy decision relating to recruitment, which will include prescribing the qualification for eligibility/ selection, is not amenable to judicial review unless the same is found to be arbitrary or otherwise invalid on the ground that such prescription does not have any rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved.”

Further, the High Court held that if the criteria of recruitment does not satisfy the test of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as that no rational nexus was established for providing such recruitment criteria with the object sought to be achieved, the recruitment criteria as prescribed in the said notification will be struck down.

“So far as the eligibility criteria is concerned, apart from a degree in law, the other qualification prescribed is that the candidate should have a score in CLAT (PG) Examination 2022 onwards. It does not provide any benchmark of the score which a candidate needs to be credited with for making him eligible to participate in the recruitment…This criterion is absolutely vague for the reason that as per the said criteria even if a candidate has secured Zero or Nil marks on his appearance in CLAT (PG) examination, he shall be eligible, whereas if a candidate has not appeared in the CLAT (PG) examination, he shall be ineligible”, the Court held.

The court also opined that had the NHAI fixed any benchmark score secured by the candidate concerned in CLAT (PG) Examination, such eligibility qualification would not have suffered from any illegality. However, by not prescribing any minimum score or benchmark to be obtained by a candidate in CLAT (PG) Examination, merely by appearance in the said examination a candidate becomes eligible though he may secure no marks at all in the said examination.

“The criteria determining eligibility for pursuing higher courses (post graduation) and the criteria for adjudging suitability for public employment, in our opinion, cannot be equated with each other”, the High Court said.

The High Court also noted that admission to post graduate law courses in these universities are not made on the basis of scores in CLAT (PG) which is conducted by the Consortium of National Law Universities for the purposes of making admission to postgraduate courses in the National Law Universities only.

“Accordingly, if the impugned recruitment criteria is to be upheld, the same would be discriminatory vis-à-vis those candidates who do not take CLAT(PG) Examination but participate in selection procedure adopted by other Central or State Universities”, the Bench observed.

Subsequently, the Court held that the recruitment criteria where selection for appointment to the post in question is to be made on the basis of merit in CLAT (PG) score – 2022 onwards, was legally not tenable being hit by Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition was disposed of.

Cause Title: Shannu Bhaghel V. Union of India (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8507:DB)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocates Shannu Baghel, Ganpat Ram, Gorang Goyal, Aakash, Saksham Kumar, Disha Gupta, Shubham Prajapati and Jitendra Kumar

Respondents: Advocates Manika Aroa, Subhro Deep Saha, Prabhat Kumar, Anamika Thakur, Abhinav Verma, Neha Sharma, Karnika Bhargava for UOI and Advocates Ankur Mittal, Rabaica Jaiswal for NHAI.

Click here to read/download Judgment


Delhi High CourtChief Justice Devendra Kumar UpadhyayaJustice Tushar Rao Gedela

Pridhi Chopra

    Pridhi Chopra was earlier practicing as an Advocate in Delhi. She pursued B.A. (H) English from Gargi College, University of Delhi, and subsequently pursued a degree in Law.