High Courts Can Prescribe Minimum Qualifying Marks in Judicial Recruitment Where Rules are Silent: Punjab & Haryana HC

Maintaining Standards: Judiciary’s Power to Set Selection Benchmarks Upheld

In a significant ruling concerning the integrity of judicial appointments, the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh has affirmed the authority of High Courts to prescribe "minimum marks qualification" in recruitment notifications, even when such criteria are not explicitly detailed in the parent Service Rules.

The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sanjiv Berry, dismissed a plea challenging Clause 8.4 of the recruitment notifications for Additional District and Sessions Judges in Punjab and Haryana. The court held that such administrative instructions are essential to fill gaps in statutory rules and ensure that only the "best available talent" is recruited to the bench.

The Disputed Clause

The litigation arose when the petitioner, Rushil Jindal, challenged Clause 8.4 of the 2023 notifications. This clause stipulated that to qualify for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge, candidates must secure at least 50% marks in the aggregate of both the written examination and the viva-voce. The petitioner argued that these requirements were arbitrary and ultra vires, as the principal Punjab and Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules (2007) did not specifically provide for such a minimum aggregate "passing" mark.

The Legal Tug-of-War

The petitioner contended that since the Rules only prescribe the maximum marks for the written test (750) and viva-voce (250), the High Court’s decision to impose an additional 50% aggregate cutoff was an unauthorized modification of the service conditions.

In response, the High Court emphasized that it holds the role of the best judge of what the subordinate judiciary requires. Citing the Supreme Court judgment in K.H. Siraj vs. High Court of Kerala , the court noted that the power to select judges includes the inherent authority to evaluate "suitability." Furthermore, the respondents pointed out that the petitioner had already challenged the same selection process before the Supreme Court, which had dismissed his plea—rendering the current petition legally unsustainable under the principles of judicial finality.

The Doctrine of Supplementary Instructions

The Court’s analysis rested on the principle that statutory service rules cannot cover every minute aspect of a complex selection process. When rules are silent, administrative instructions play a vital role in supplementing those rules.

"The appropriate authority cannot amend or supersede statutory rules by administrative actions," the bench remarked, quoting the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Dr. Kavita Kamboj vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana . "However, it is open to it to issue instructions to fill up the gaps and supplement the rules where they are silent on any particular point."

Key Observations

The judgment clarifies that the High Court’s administrative discretion in setting criteria is meant to safeguard the quality of the judiciary:

• On the duty to choose talent: "The High Court alone knows what are the requirements of the subordinate judiciary... The High Court has to exercise its powers in the light of the constitutional scheme so that the best available talent, suitable for manning the judiciary may get selected."
• On the validity of supplements: "It is clearly open for the High Court to prescribe bench marks for the written test and oral test in order to achieve the purpose of getting the best available talent and there is nothing in the Rules barring such a procedure from being adopted."
• On the nature of judicial duties: "A candidate should not just demonstrate the ability to reproduce their knowledge... but must also demonstrate both practical knowledge and the application of the substantive law in the course of the interview."

Impact of the Decision

By dismissing the petition, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has reinforced the autonomy of High Courts in conducting competitive examinations for judicial service. For future aspirants, the verdict serves as a clear indication that high-level benchmarks in recruitment notifications—provided they are aimed at ensuring competence—will withstand legal scrutiny even if not explicitly spelled out in older statutory service rules. The judgment effectively upholds the High Court’s position as a guardian of the standards required for the "sacrosanct duties" of a judicial officer.