NHAI May Scrap CLAT-PG Score for Lawyer Recruitment After Legal Challenge

New Delhi – The National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) has indicated to the Delhi High Court its willingness to reconsider a controversial recruitment policy that uses scores from the Common Law Admission Test (Post-Graduate) or CLAT-PG, to hire legal professionals. This development comes in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the rationality and legality of using an academic entrance examination as the sole criterion for public employment.

The submission was made on Monday before a division bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela. The court was hearing a petition filed by advocate Shannu Baghel, who challenged NHAI's August 11 notification that established CLAT-PG scores as a basis for selecting lawyers. Acknowledging the challenge, NHAI's counsel informed the bench that the authority is "likely to reconsider the impugned decision" and has extended the application deadline to September 25. In light of this statement, the Court scheduled the next hearing for September 18, ordering it to be "placed high on board."

This case has ignited a significant debate within the legal community, questioning the prevalent practice among Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) of using CLAT-PG scores as a shortcut for recruitment, and whether this method stands up to constitutional scrutiny.

The Core of the Challenge: Academic Merit vs. Professional Competence

The petition, titled Shannu Baghel v. Union of India & Anr , strikes at the fundamental premise of NHAI's recruitment strategy. The primary argument advanced by the petitioner is that the CLAT-PG examination serves a singular, specific purpose. "The CLAT-PG examination is conducted only for assessing the merit of the respective candidates holding LL.B Degree to pursue master's degree in law," the plea contends.

The petitioner draws a sharp distinction between the objective of the examination and the nature of the employment offered by NHAI. The notification, the plea argues, is not for admission into an LL.M. program but for engaging the services of professional lawyers. Consequently, the use of CLAT-PG scores is deemed inappropriate and misplaced.

The core legal argument rests on the doctrine of "reasonable nexus." The plea asserts that "there is no reasonable or rational nexus between the objects sought to be achieved and the basis of preparation of merit for such selection by NHAI." By limiting the selection criteria exclusively to an academic test score, the petitioner argues, NHAI's policy becomes "arbitrary and irrational," potentially violating the principles of equality and fair opportunity in public employment enshrined in the Constitution of India.

Legal Implications and the PSU Recruitment Model

The practice of using CLAT-PG scores for recruitment is not unique to NHAI. Over the past decade, numerous PSUs—including major players in the energy, oil, and power sectors—have adopted this model. The rationale has often been one of efficiency: leveraging a standardized, national-level examination to shortlist candidates from a vast pool of applicants, thereby saving the time and resources required to conduct independent recruitment tests.

However, this case brings the legal and practical validity of this model under a microscope. Critics argue that the CLAT-PG syllabus, which focuses on constitutional law, jurisprudence, and other academic legal subjects, does not necessarily test the skills required for an in-house counsel at a body like NHAI. The role of a legal professional in a PSU often demands expertise in specific domains like contract law, arbitration, infrastructure law, land acquisition, and regulatory compliance—areas that may not be the primary focus of the CLAT-PG exam.

Furthermore, the examination does not assess practical skills such as legal drafting, negotiation, client counseling, or litigation strategy, which are critical for professional success. Relying solely on CLAT-PG scores may therefore overlook experienced and highly competent lawyers who did not pursue or excel in a postgraduate entrance exam but possess extensive practical knowledge relevant to the job.

The Court's Scrutiny and NHAI's Reassessment

NHAI's statement that it is "likely to reconsider" its decision is a significant concession. It suggests that the authority recognizes the weight of the legal arguments raised in the PIL. This move could be a strategic one to pre-empt an adverse judicial order, which could have far-reaching consequences for other PSUs employing the same recruitment methodology.

Should the Delhi High Court rule decisively on this matter, it could set a binding precedent. A judgment affirming the petitioner's stance would compel PSUs across the country to overhaul their recruitment processes for legal positions. They might be required to develop their own specialized examinations that test for role-specific knowledge and practical skills, or to adopt a more holistic evaluation process that includes interviews, drafting tests, and consideration of prior work experience.

Conversely, if the court were to uphold the use of CLAT-PG, it would lend judicial legitimacy to this recruitment model. However, given the strong arguments against the rational nexus, legal experts believe that PSUs may still be encouraged to supplement CLAT-PG scores with additional, more practical assessment stages.

Awaiting the Next Hearing

The legal fraternity will be watching the September 18 hearing with keen interest. NHAI's final position—whether it will formally withdraw the notification or propose a modified recruitment scheme—will be critical. The court's observations and eventual ruling in Shannu Baghel v. Union of India & Anr could well become a landmark decision, reshaping the landscape of legal recruitment in India's public sector and prompting a much-needed dialogue on how to best identify and hire legal talent for the nation's most vital state-run enterprises.