Delhi High Court Strikes Down NHAI’s CLAT-Based Recruitment, Cites Violation of Constitutional Rights - 2025-09-25

Delhi High Court Strikes Down NHAI’s CLAT-Based Recruitment, Cites Violation of Constitutional Rights

NEW DELHI – In a significant ruling with wide-ranging implications for public sector hiring, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday quashed a National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) notification that made scores from the Common Law Admission Test for Post Graduates (CLAT-PG) the sole basis for recruiting legal professionals. A division bench, comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, held the recruitment criteria to be arbitrary, irrational, and in violation of the fundamental rights to equality and equal opportunity guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

The judgment in the case of Shannu Baghel v. Union of India & Anr. strikes at the heart of a growing trend among Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) to use academic entrance exam scores for professional employment. The Court unequivocally stated that a test designed to assess suitability for higher academic pursuits cannot be a legitimate proxy for determining a candidate's fitness for public employment.

---

The Impugned Notification and the Legal Challenge

The controversy stemmed from an August 11, 2025, notification issued by the NHAI for the engagement of 44 Young Professionals (Legal) on a contractual basis. The notification stipulated that "The selection shall be made on the basis of merit in Common Law Admission Test (CLAT), 2022 onward (Post Graduate) Score."

This condition was challenged through a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Shannu Baghel. The petitioner argued that the CLAT-PG is an examination conducted exclusively to assess the merit of LL.B. graduates for admission into master's degree programs (LL.M.). The plea contended that using this score for professional recruitment, which involves providing legal services, has no reasonable or rational nexus with the objective of selecting the most suitable candidates for the job.

The petition highlighted the arbitrary and exclusionary nature of the criteria, which effectively barred several qualified candidates, including: * Fresh law graduates who had not appeared for the CLAT-PG. * Experienced practicing advocates who may be better suited for the role but did not have a recent CLAT-PG score. * Candidates who appeared for the CLAT-PG prior to 2022.

It was argued that this created an unfair classification, violating Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. During the proceedings, the bench had pointedly questioned the NHAI’s counsel, asking, “What is the nexus? You are testing them on credibility, but the purpose of CLAT PG is mainly for LLM admissions.”

Initially, the NHAI had informed the court that it was reconsidering its decision and had extended the application deadline. However, the matter proceeded to a final hearing, with the court staying the recruitment process on September 18 while it reserved the verdict.

---

Court's Rationale: A Clear Distinction Between Academia and Employment

In its detailed judgment, the Delhi High Court delivered a sharp critique of the NHAI’s recruitment methodology. The bench dismantled the logic of using an academic test score for a professional role, emphasizing the fundamental difference between the two domains.

"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 Court observed. It clarified that while the CLAT-PG is a credible national-level examination for academic admissions, its purpose is distinct from evaluating the skills and competencies required for a legal professional in a public authority.

The judgment underscored that public employment demands a different set of skills—such as practical knowledge, advocacy, and professional experience—which are not necessarily measured by a postgraduate entrance test. "Here selection is to be held for the purposes of recruitment/ selection/ appointment/ employment and not for the purposes of pursuing higher studies," the bench stated, concluding that the NHAI’s criteria failed the crucial test of rational nexus.

Arbitrariness and Vagueness in the Criteria

The Court also found the notification to be plagued by vagueness and internal contradiction. It pointed out the absurdity of the condition, noting, “Even if a candidate has secured zero marks on his appearance in CLAT (PG) examination, he shall be eligible, whereas if a candidate has not appeared in the said examination at all, he shall be ineligible. (S)uch a prescription belies any reason whatsoever.” This observation highlighted the irrationality of making the mere act of appearing for the exam, regardless of performance, a gateway to eligibility, while excluding all others.

Furthermore, the NHAI’s defense that other PSUs also use CLAT-PG scores was firmly rejected by the Court. The bench held that an erroneous practice adopted by others cannot serve as a legal justification. “Because certain other organisations including Public Sector Undertakings, have been adopting CLAT (PG) score as basis for offering employment, is not a justification….for the NHAI to prescribe the impugned recruitment criteria,” the judgment stated, preventing the perpetuation of a potentially unconstitutional hiring practice.

---

Implications for Public Sector Recruitment

This landmark decision is poised to have a ripple effect across various government bodies and PSUs that have come to rely on CLAT-PG scores as a convenient, albeit flawed, shortlisting tool. Legal experts suggest that this judgment will compel these organizations to rethink their recruitment strategies and develop more tailored and constitutionally sound methods for hiring legal talent.

The ruling reaffirms a core constitutional principle: any criteria for public employment must be fair, non-arbitrary, and directly related to the requirements of the job. It serves as a strong precedent against using standardized academic tests as a one-size-fits-all solution for professional recruitment. Public authorities are now on notice to ensure their selection processes are designed to identify genuine merit and suitability for the specific role, rather than outsourcing their recruitment diligence to an academic testing agency.

By quashing the notification, the Delhi High Court has not only provided relief to the petitioners but has also reinforced the sanctity of Articles 14 and 16, ensuring that the doors of public employment remain open to all eligible candidates on the basis of fair and rational criteria.