*****

SANJIV BERRY, J.

1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the impugned Clause 8.4 in the respective notifications, dated 15.11.2023 issued for the State of Haryana (Annexure P-1) and dated 14.11.2023 issued for the State of Punjab (Annexure P-2) to the extent of providing for minimum requirement of 40% marks out of total 750 marks of the written examination and 50% marks out of total aggregate of 1000 marks for qualification, the same being in contravention of principal Statutory Rules of Haryana

Superior Judicial Service, Rules 2007, (Annexure P-3) and Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (Annexure P-4) and has sought quashing thereof, with the consequential relief of issuance of writ of certiorari, quashing the impugned action of the respondent in not appointing the petitioner to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge in the States of Punjab and Haryana.

2. The facts in brief averred by the petitioner are that he had appeared in the competitive examination conducted for appointment to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge in the State of Haryana as well as Punjab vide notifications (Annexure P-1 and P-2) respectively in quota for appointment by way of direct recruitment. In the written examination the petitioner secured 344.5 marks in the State of Haryana and 340.5 marks in the State of Punjab out of total 750 marks. The petitioner had scored requisite 40% marks in each paper. However the petitioner was declared unsuccessful after result of written examination and viva-voce inter alia on the ground that he obtained less then 50% marks in aggregate out of total marks fixed for written test and viva-voce as per Clause 8.4 of the impugned notifications (Annexure P-1 and P-2) hence the petition.

3. The learned Senior counsel representing the petitioner has assailed these notifications imposing “minimum marks qualification” under clause 8.4 thereof being arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law, on the ground that the same is not in consonance with the basic Rules contained in Punjab Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 and Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules 2007 (Annexure P-4 and P-3) by referring to the Rule 11 and Rule 7 respectively wherein the procedure for direct appointment is

laid down. He contends that in the Rules there is only provision of written test of 750 marks and viva-voice of 250 marks therein without there being any such provision of “minimum marks qualification” as envisaged in the impugned clause 8.4 of the Notifications (Annexure P-1 and P-2). He submits that despite the petitioner being eligible for qualifying the written examination by scoring 40% marks in each paper, he was declared unsuccessful primarily because of the imposition of clause 8.4 (supra) in the advertisement. He submits that the petitioner had topped in Delhi Higher Judicial Service Examination, 2023 and also cleared the written examination in the States of Punjab and Haryana, therefore, the reassessment of the answer-sheet is essential in the interest of equity and fair play and referred to judgments passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in “Pranav Verma Vs. The Registrar General, High Court of Punjab and Haryana, 2020 (15) SCC 377 and Navneet Kaur Dhaliwal vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana, 2021(11) SCC, 147.

4. Per Contra, learned Senior Counsel representing the High Court submits that in the light of the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Dr. Kavita Kamboj vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and Others (2024) 7 SCC 103, the issue raised by the petitioner is no more res integra. She further submits that the petitioner had already filed writ petition (civil) No.501/2024 in the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which already stood dismissed vide (Annexure P-8) without there being any liberty granted to the petitioner, as such the petitioner is estopped from filing the instant petition. It is further contended that Clause 8.4 of the impugned notifications prescribed for