General category candidates for the appointment of Additional District Judge in Haryana have suffered a setback. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has upheld the ADJ selection criteria for general category candidates in the written and oral exams. Dismissing the writ challenging the matter, the High Court has held that the petitioner, who failed to obtain the pre-determined minimum marks, was ineligible for appointment.
The petitioner had initially participated in the selection process of his own free will without objecting to clause 15, he was “prevented” from questioning its validity only because the result was contrary to him.
What the High Court said in its judgment
The High Court has said in its judgment that it is the right of the concerned authority to determine this. The court has said that the prescribed authority has the privilege to determine the eligibility conditions to ensure the selection of the highest qualified candidates for judicial posts. A bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumit Goel said that the requirement of obtaining a minimum of 50 per cent marks is not a mere procedural formality, nor is it a threshold that can be ignored at judicial discretion. Rather, it is an essential condition for eligibility.
Demand for relaxation in 50% marks
The petitioner had sought relaxation in the 50 per cent qualifying marks criterion, arguing that there should be no fixed threshold in a competitive selection process. Rejecting this argument, the court said that the prerogative of determining eligibility conditions to ensure the selection of candidates of the highest calibre for judicial posts lies with the prerogative of the presiding authority.
The judgment said, it falls within the prerogative of the selecting authority to determine criteria that ensure the recruitment of candidates of the highest calibre, particularly for a post of significant judicial responsibility.
Petitioner demands grace marks
Considering the petitioner’s demand for grace marks, the Court observed that such a demand is legally impermissible and contrary to the constitutional principles of fairness and equality in public employment. “The conditions of eligibility, once legally prescribed, cannot be abridged, diluted or altered to suit the requirements of an individual candidate. The grant of additional or grace marks in the field of public appointments would be a grave departure from the sacrosanct principles of fairness and equality,” the Court said.
Cited Supreme Court rules
The Bench cited Supreme Court jurisprudence that unless expressly provided in the applicable rules, it is against rounding off marks. The Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 do not allow any relaxation or grace marks, making the petitioner’s request legally impermissible. The high court said the law does not support any kind of preferential or ad hoc relaxation in favour of an individual, particularly when such relaxation has neither statutory sanction nor any reasonable connection with the declared objective of securing meritorious appointments.
Criteria non-negotiable
Rejecting the petitioner’s claim that the selection criteria were clear, mandatory and non-negotiable, the court said that challenging the clause was merely a consideration for the purpose of getting a second chance through judicial intervention. The bench concluded, “In the factual matrix of this case, having accepted the terms of the advertisement and subjected to the prescribed criteria, the petitioner is estopped by law from challenging the requirement of minimum qualifying marks as a mere expedient measure to get a second chance at appointment.
