Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds 50% Minimum Marks Requirement For District Judiciary Exam

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the mandatory requirement that candidates for the district judiciary exam must secure a minimum of 50%, i.e., 500 marks out of 1,000, across both the written test and viva voce.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel observed that this criterion is essential for objectively adjudging the qualities and capacities of candidates seeking judicial appointments.

The Court noted, “There is no gainsaying that it may be necessary in view of the fact that only persons with the requisite minimum qualities and capacities should be selected, lest the standard of the judiciary be diluted by substandard candidates.”

The Division Bench further explained that while the written test evaluates academic knowledge, the oral examination is pivotal in assessing overall intellectual attributes, judicial temperament, leadership, and decision-making abilities.

The requirement was challenged by petitioner, who fell short of the qualifying mark by 33 points and contended that the selection process should not mandate a fixed threshold.

The petitioner, aspiring to become a judicial officer, contested the appointment order issued on December 21, 2018, which included a group of successful candidates while excluding him. The case arose from an advertisement published on July 16, 2015, by the Registrar (Recruitment) for the position of Additional District & Sessions Judge.

Amid claims of discrepancies and unfair practices throughout the selection process, the Division Bench emphasized the need for transparency and adherence to established rules under Article 309 of the Constitution, which governs judicial appointments.

The Court dismissed his arguments, citing the well-established principle that eligibility conditions, once lawfully stipulated, are a sine qua non for public appointments. Thus, the Court ruled that the minimum marks requirement is not a mere procedural formality but an indispensable benchmark for ensuring that only candidates of the highest caliber are appointed to judicial positions.

"The requirement of attaining a minimum of 50% marks is not a mere procedural formality nor a dispensable threshold that may be overlooked at judicial discretion; rather, it constitutes an indispensable prerequisite, a sine qua non, for eligibility," it said.

The Court referred to the precedent set in Abhimeet Sinha & others vs. High Court of Judicature of Patna, emphasizing that granting additional or grace marks without compelling justification would violate constitutional guarantees of fairness and equal treatment under Articles 14 and 16.

The Bench further reinforced the principle of equality before the law, stating that while the petitioner sought to question irregularities favoring other candidates, he could not claim benefits that were not legally sanctioned.

“Claiming equality based on an illegality perpetuates an unfair process and contravenes the foundational legal principles,” the Court observed, citing Gurushanan Singh and Others vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee.

The Bench subsequently dismissed the plea.

Cause Title: Rajesh Gupta v. Punjab and Haryana High Court and others [Neutral Citation No. =2025:PHHC:036129-DB]

Appearance:-

Petitioner: Advocate R.N. Lohan

Respondent: Advocates Vikas Chatrath, Preet Arora, Tanya Sehgal, Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate Aakash Sharma

Click here to read/download the Judgment